Lohr v. Paine
William J. Lohr v. John Barton Paine
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Per Curiam.
A collision took place between a steam railroad train and an automobile driven by the appellant. The case presents only a question as to whether appellant’s conduct rendered him guilty of contributory negligence. After a thorough examination of the record, we agree with the trial court that we “cannot find there is any reasonable doubt that any reasonable man must find that the plaintiff in this case was guilty of contributory negligence.” The appellant’s actions place the case squarely within the rule announced in Bowden v. Walla Walla Valley R. Co., 79 Wash. 184 , 140 Pac. 549 ; Aldredge v. Oregon-Washington R. & Nav. Co., 79 Wash. 349 , 140 Pac. 550 ; Cole v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 82 Wash. 322 , 144 Pac. 34 ; McKinney v. Port Townsend, etc. R. Co., 91 Wash. 387 , 158 Pac. 107 ; Golay v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 105 Wash. 132 , 177 Pac. 804 ; Mouso v. Bellingham & Northern R. Co., 106 Wash. 299 , 179 Pac. 848 ; Benedict v. Hines, 110 Wash. 338 , 188 Pac. 512 . See, also, Chicago, etc. R. Co. v. Biwer, 266 Fed. 965 ; Robinson v. Oregon-Wdshington R. & Nav. Co., 90 Ore. 490 , 176 Pac. 594 ; Olds v. Hines, 95 Ore. 580 , 187 Pac. 586 , 188 Pac. 716 .
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.