The Seattle star. [volume] (Seattle, Wash.) 1899-1947, 1910-10-25
(coneiudsd)

enod loss Of confidence IN the
court.
We now come 10 the repeal by
the court Of the law OF stop. looh
and listen
Six years ago a farmer named
Woolf. going along a county road
IN Clarke county ia a farm wagon
undertook 10 drive across the
tracks OF the Washington Railroad
and Navigation company, wa
struck By a passing train and
killed Mrs Woolf sued the rail
road company for his death and
7 In the trial court WIS given a yor.
dict for 81 800 The company ap
pealcd. and the supreme court. a..
ter listening 20 the arguments Of
the able counsel for the railroads.
said Ia effect:
Mrs. Woolf, We are very Eor-
~ for you. but the RAILROAD
company did not Kill your hus.
band. he killed himself His
death was the result Of his own
F. .neahbsnes or intention. He 10
an admirable example Of the
doctrine Of contrlbutory negli-
eence. You cannot recover.
n this impoverishes you. Ne,
Of course. cannot help u, We
must give the railroad company
the benefit Of the law, and the
law says your husband killed
himself"
Now. let as examine what the
Law was. that 10 what II was be-
fore the supreme court listened 10
the attorneys for this railroad. what
IL was as the attorneys for Mrs.
Woolf found Il Ia the earlier de.
cislona o. the supreme court OF
/ Washington.
The question here WAS whether
I Woolf had been careless. whether
I he had taken the usual precautions
% an ordinarily prudent man.
Z Other courts had said that crossing
railroad track Is dangerous. that
the ordinarily prudent man, before
I crossing one. will stop. look and
{ listen. to see whether there Sc a
train approaching Woolf was a
[ man. 30 FAR az the court knew. OF
ordinary FFN0th9f,
In the case Of NJ. p. Ry. W.
I Holmes. the Washington territorial
supreme court had held that Il was
not always negligence not 20 stop,
I look and listen before crossing a
/ railroad track, that whether Il vas
/ depended upon the circumstances
Holmes, who had neglected TO dc
. - 81 an mn
/ IN the case Of Steele Va. N. p. Ry-
IL was net proven that Steele
stopped 70 look and listen. Steele
vas a i4-year-oid boy, but the court
I held that he vas a person Of ordin
airy prudence. that being a person
Z % ordinary prudence u was pre-
sured that he acted as an ordinsri.
( ~ prudent person would act, that
he looked and listened.
Well. Woolf was a man Of ordin-
AIRY prudence So In the trial OF
the case 81 was presumed that be
| had displayed ordinary prudence,
that he looked and listened. Woolf
himself. remember. WAS dead. There
WAS no positive evidence ON this
point. SO the railroad went TO the
supreme court arriving there dur.
ing the Root period OF the court s
| history The case Was assigned TO
Root and Root wrote a decision re
versing Il. He said
Respondent tMrs Wooln argues
that Il must be presumed that de-
ceased did look and listen. In APP
propriate cases II would be proper
to indulge this presumption. But
this Is not one Of them
In effect this decision holds that
woolf, an ordinarily prudent man,
would not, In the absence Of testi-
mony be presumed 10 have acted as
an ordinarily prudent man would
have acted. II holds that where a
farmer, travelling by team alone, Is
killed while attempting TO cross a
railroad track, the law Will not pre-
sumo that he acted as prudent
man would have acted had there
been a prudent man there Instead
Of a farmer. So Mrs. Woolf was
pauperixed and the railroad com
pany saved si7,5oo.
Many courts have held that. while
the rule OF stop. look and listen ap-
plies to crossing railroad tracks on
private rights OF way. Il does not
apply TO street car tracks occupying
public streets. Il is held by them
that pedestrians and teamsters have
the same rights upon public
streets that street cars have. and
that n street car runs over a
pedestrian. it does so at its own
peril. the same as a bicyclist.
For years this was the rule In
Washington. Tho supreme court
laid It down In the Smith case in
1897. followed Il In the Roberts
case IN 1900, and again in the
Traver case In 1901. In the Traver
case the opinion was written by
Judge White. and & was expressly
stated In the opinion that Traver
did not look or listen before driving
on the track And yet the court
held that this was not negligence.
But a new power arose In the
street railway life of Washington.
In 1900 the Seattle Electric com
pany was organized. and took over
the street railways Of Seattle Il
also began meddling extensively in
local and state politics And when
the first Seattle Electric company
case. involving this point. reached
the supreme court. that body began
to hedge.
This was the Burian case. In
the Burian case the court said that
failure to look or listen before
crossing a street car track was not
negligence as matter Of law. but
a question to be submitted TO the
jury to determine whether It was