Puget Sound Electric Ry. v. Van Pelt
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern Division of the Western District of Washington. The defendant in error was employed as a motorman on an interurbun electric train running between the cities of Seattle and Tacoma. His duties required him to ride in a small compartment partitioned off in front of the front motor car.
Read the full summary
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern Division of the Western District of Washington. The defendant in error was employed as a motorman on an interurbun electric train running between the cities of Seattle and Tacoma. His duties required him to ride in a small compartment partitioned off in front of the front motor car. In the apparatus used for lighting and heating the cars of the train, there was used what is known as a “heating and lighting fuse,” one end of which was connected with the lighting and heating wire of the car. The fuse was filled with a certain…
1Opinion of the CourtGilbert, Circuit Judge
(after staling the facts as above). It is contended that the court erred in permitting two witnesses for the defendant iti error to testify to facts tending to show that the unusual current of electricity which caused the explosion of the fuse was created by a wire connecting two of the coaches of the train, which was pulled out of its coupling, and thereupon fell and came in contact with the hose hanger and grounded the current. It is urged that this evidence was inadmissible for the reason that the only ground of negligence alleged in the complaint was negligence in placing the fuse in the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- North Chicago Street Railway Co. v. CottonIllinois Supreme Court · 1892
- Chicago & Iowa Railroad v. LaneIllinois Supreme Court · 1889
- Lucas v. WattlesMichigan Supreme Court · 1882
- South Chicago City Railway Co. v. PurvisIllinois Supreme Court · 1901
- Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. R. R. v. ChinskyAppellate Court of Illinois · 1900
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. ArmstrongCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1936
- Josephine M. Pulvari v. Greyhound CorporationCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1967
- Harstad v. StoneDistrict Court, D. Alaska · 1910
- Josephine M. Pulvari v. Greyhound CorporationCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1967