Legal Opinion · Dissent

Malland v. Sims

Washington Supreme Court

Decided July 25, 1933No. 24363. Department TwoPublished

1DissentBlake, J.

(dissenting) — I dissent. I think the failure to give a warning signal made a case of negligence for the jury.

I do not think the cases cited support the position of the majority. In Memphis, D. & G. R. Co. v. Yandall, 123 Ark. 515, 185 S. W. 1096, a warning signal was given under such circumstances that the injured workman was deemed to have heard it. In McInerney v. President, etc., of Delaware & H. Canal Co., 151 N. Y. 411, 45 N. E. 848, the railroad company was exonerated from liability on the ground that the injured workman was a fellow servant of the train crew. In Campbell v. New York,…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Roth v. Union Depot Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1896
  2. McInerney v. President, Managers & Co. of Delaware & Hudson Canal Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1897
  3. Lovell v. House of the Good ShepherdWashington Supreme Court · 1896
  4. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. StephensonIndiana Supreme Court · 1894
  5. Lovell v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1906

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API