search archive

browse

Previous Next

155 Spokane Truck and Dray Co v Hoefer Appellants

Object Type: Asset
In Folder: Supreme Court Briefs

Expand to show object metadata

155 Spokane Truck and Dray Co v Hoefer Appellants

Dublin Core Metadata

title: J Gus Hoefer and Mina Hoefer, his wife, Plaintiffs and Appellees, vs Spokane Truck and Dray Company, Defendant and Appellant, Brief of Defendant and Appellant.

title: 155

creator: Spokane Truck and Dray Company

contributor: Turner

contributor: Graves

date: 1891-01

publisher: Washington State Supreme Court

type: Civil

subject: Remedies

language: eng

format: application/pdf

description: Prior History: Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County.Negligence – Necessary Care – Instructions – Punitive Damages – Where the court has already instructed the jury that if it did not appear by a preponderance of the evidence that the injury was occasioned by defendant’s negligence they should find for the defendant, it is not error for the court to refuse to instruct that if the injury occurred by defects in the wall caused by the elements, which were not discovered by ordinary care, the plaintiff cannot recorder in the absence of further negligence on the part of the defendant.A person hoisting a heavy safe in a public thoroughfare where people are constantly passing is bound to use such care as the nature of the employment and the situation and circumstances of the same require of a prudent person experienced and skilled in such or similar work.The doctrine of punitive damages is unsound in principle, and such damages cannot be recovered in this state, although the defendant may have been guilty of gross negligence.

relation: Spokane Truck & Dray Co. v. Hoefer, 2 Wash. 45 (1891)

relation: 25 P. 1072

rights: These materials are public records. Please see Washington State Court Rules: General Rules 31 for details https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/pdf/GR/GA_GR_31_00_00.pdf

Other Documents

sdb:SO|b02151bb-0dfd-4934-85db-4f41dc86aaee

693

1 Andrews v King County Appellants

IO_80783247-e3a4-4fe1-8fcf-ef0249c6c98e

1 Andrews v King County Respondents

IO_54123b4d-761d-40cb-a35a-f4032182711e

100 Cowie v Ahrenstedt Appellants

IO_7e09f8c9-cbd7-4ab5-ad83-5a2a7b068ba5

100 Cowie v Ahrenstedt Respondents

IO_a01bb11f-d6cc-40dd-a33b-0f3f741796e2

101 Potvin v McCorvey Appellants

IO_c0719e2b-2f42-46a9-8f1a-f87384fd8ff0

101 Potvin v McCorvey Respondents

IO_8b26c929-d6e1-4020-9070-8254ea7d441d

103 Reed v Tacoma Bldg and Sav Assn Appellants

IO_c8c5e50a-be66-402e-9bf6-9af3f2d10221

103 Reed v Tacoma Bldg and Sav Assn Appellants Reply

IO_830e38f6-6378-4427-9ed2-3cd2ccb2e527

103 Reed v Tacoma Bldg and Sav Assn Respondents

IO_dc8ee216-b37a-48d8-a7f8-e8ef1026fc9b

103 Reed v Tacoma Bldg and Sav Assn Respondents Reply

IO_49607fe5-555d-4804-8138-53d1675d016d

104 Clark v Tacoma Bldg and Sav Assn Appellants

IO_0ed099a3-523f-492e-b21f-3504cdc79b69

104 Clark v Tacoma Bldg and Sav Assn Appellants Reply

IO_a5588d86-1425-46b3-b82e-3ae50d42f5fb

104 Clark v Tacoma Bldg and Sav Assn Respondents

IO_ed172c61-aa23-4070-8940-fb350d79fef3

104 Clark v Tacoma Bldg and Sav Assn Respondents Additional

IO_359b715f-df6c-40a1-8b47-5c7277cc5d5f

109 Rose v State Appellants

IO_957a48fa-2583-466e-80eb-354c3fa0be2c

109 Rose v State Appellants Reply

IO_cc318ead-df95-444e-894b-287572817d9e

109 Rose v State Respondents

IO_b232a1d3-df2b-46aa-9103-1ebfdb2046fe

110 Edwards v State Appellants

IO_534216e4-e277-43c7-8915-ef9d59d17552

110 Edwards v State Respondents

IO_20d406f4-01c5-4399-85ef-20df796d7368

111 Wadhams v Page Appellants

IO_91a9e829-fdf6-48c6-847c-b54f7d0567a7

111 Wadhams v Page Appellants Reply

IO_64394bc4-53d3-4065-8ed5-5e93a57d3ae5

112 State v Miller Appellants

IO_5978dbeb-c1d9-46c3-b4ff-62a40de04f36

112 State v Miller Respondents

IO_71baf563-9d32-4d07-acd4-986ef5a6b71b

113 Gates v Brown Appellants

IO_56de8db8-4fcd-4690-8309-fc15697dbcfb

113 Gates v Brown Appellants Reply

IO_b1f86485-91d3-4af9-8359-b73304057830

113 Gates v Brown Respondents

IO_3de4d476-8259-455c-af27-51aa879c8405

114 Travis v Ward Appellants

IO_ca19d578-09cb-4e46-8cec-48e44abd6bd4

114 Travis v Ward Respondents

IO_c3747c41-4d6e-43f1-bab5-2a139edda72c

115 Pettygrove v Rothschild Appellants

IO_5d034f17-b773-41e0-8833-6665fd2890b1

115 Pettygrove v Rothschild Respondents

IO_74af3e34-cd1e-4c89-b252-1df5079717db

116 McLeod v Ellis Appellants

IO_dc352021-0788-4398-8aef-68f4c70db7bd

116 McLeod v Ellis Respondents

IO_8404a5e4-40de-4593-8058-b385d731fbec

117 Terry v Clothier Appellants

IO_c0406ea5-0f2b-4cbb-b091-b2948c68a6a7

117 Terry v Clothier Respondents

IO_3256ac7a-2a14-468c-897d-54b3a05f5196

119 Cline v Harmon Appellants

IO_13b51a89-9822-4e42-9baf-26fa2e2e3e3e

119 Cline v Harmon Appellants Sup

IO_a2009792-cda4-4e6b-86c0-36a58d0602b7

119 Cline v Harmon Respondents

IO_2e7c2739-76e3-43e8-8045-0fca4a56eaa0

120 Cline v Tacoma Stove Co Respondents

IO_d03ac11f-7d69-4857-ab68-7f0e9e214bfc

121 Cline v Burrichter Respondents

IO_6246e4e2-40fe-4b9c-a2a8-f61696daeb7c

122 Dexter Horton and Co v Sparkman Appellants

IO_1adb7af8-e39b-4173-a593-3d69bafcd0ec

122 Dexter Horton and Co v Sparkman Respondents

IO_ccaf9f26-46c0-4627-9dea-c3364f53c30c

123 Dexter Horton and Co v Wiley Appellants

IO_53783a18-c083-4171-b5b5-4371858b3869

124 Cadwell v Brackett Appellants

IO_f80a271d-fedc-4f98-b7e8-3afebb4460ff

124 Cadwell v Brackett Respondents

IO_1ea8c8df-ae0e-41f1-8ee9-aa7c63335744

125 Stowe v State Appellants

IO_e1fad6f4-4d58-4d96-af7a-746645eef5f5

125 Stowe v State Respondents

IO_1a7968f5-7c6a-455e-9b19-db285e108cc4

126 Reed v Miller Appellants

IO_23a36076-11ee-4070-8297-87317d7ae098

126 Reed v Miller Respondents

IO_8ee442fa-486e-4220-85c1-8c9aa490394e

127 Banner v May Appellants

IO_3acb1d49-f834-4a79-93dc-297770c56eff

127 Banner v May Appellants Reply

IO_acc0b929-79e7-4d0d-95b5-79b4a61ad316

Powered by Preservica

© Copyright 2024