Carroll v. Union Pacific Railroad
Washington Supreme Court
1DissentBlake, J.
(dissenting) — That the defendant was negligent in maintaining a condition on its right of way which obscured the vision of travelers approaching the crossing, is apparently conceded. In such a situation it has been held by this court that the question of contributory negligence is for the jury. Ladouceur v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 6 Wash. 280, 33 Pac. 556, 1080; Steele v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 21 Wash. 287, 57 Pac. 820; Stewart v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 96 Wash. 486, 165 Pac. 377; Hubenthal v. Spokane & Inland Empire Co., 97 Wash. 581, 166 Pac. 797. Speaking for the court in the Steele case,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Grand Trunk Railway Co. v. IvesSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Steele v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1899
- Stewart v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1917
- Ladouceur v. Northern Pacific RailroadWashington Supreme Court · 1893
- Hubenthal v. Spokane & Inland Empire RailroadWashington Supreme Court · 1917