Case ID: wash_41/html/0618-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[No. 5934.
    Decided February 16, 1906.]
    F. H. Westcott et al., Respondents, v. Seattle, Renton & Southern Railway Company, Appellant.
    
    Carriers — Injury to Passengers — Carrying Dogs in Street Cars. A street car company is liable to a passenger for injuries inflicted by a dog belonging to a fellow passenger wbicb tbe company permitted to be carried in a passenger coacb.
    Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for King county, Morris, J., entered June 17, 1905, upon the verdict of a jury rendered in favor of the plaintiff, a passenger on a street car, for damages inflicted by a dog permitted to remain in the car, contrary to the rules of the company.
    Affirmed.
    
      Peters & Powell, for appellant,
    cited: New York etc. R. Co. v. Bennett, 50 Fed. 496.
    
      Robert A. Devers, for respondents.
    It was the defendant’s duty to object to the presence of the dog on the car in violation of its rules. Bass v. Chicago etc. R. Co., 36 Wis. 450, 17 Am. Rep. 495. The instruction allowing recovery for shame or humiliation which was a necessary part of the injury was proper. Willson v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 5 Wash. 621, 32 Pac. 468, 34 Pac. 146; Houston etc. R. Co. v. Perkins, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 508; Texas etc. R. Co. v. Hughes (Tex. Civ. App.), 41 S. W. 821; Texas etc. R. Co. v. Jones (Tex. Civ. App.), 39 S. W. 124; Louisville etc. R. Co. v. Whitman, 19 Ala. 328. It was the duty of the conductor to render assistance and prevent further injury. Craker v. Chicago etc. R. Co., 36 Wis. 651, 17 Am. Rep. 504; Day v. Owen, 5 Mich. 520, 12 Am. Dec. 62; New York etc. R. Co., v. Bennett, 50 Fed. 496.
    
      
      Reported in 84 Pac. 588.
    
   Per Curiam.

This action was brought by the respondents, to recover for damages to the clothing and to the sensibilities of respondent Margaret Westcott while a passenger upon one of appellant’s cars. These damages were inflicted by a four-months-old puppy, brought into the car by another lady passenger, and permitted by the conductor to remain there. Verdict was rendered in favor of the respondents, judgment was entered thereon, and from such judgment this appeal is taken.

A street car company has no right to carry dogs upon a coach that is set apart for passengers, and if it does so, and damage is caused by said dog, it must respond to the same.' There being no errors in instructions, or in the admission of testimony, the judgment is affirmed.