The Spokane press. [volume] (Spokane, Wash.) 1902-1939, 1910-10-29
THE SUPREME COURT UNMASKEO
Continued From Page One.

the case 1t was presumed that he
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 courts
history. The case was assigned to
Root and Root wrote a decision re-
versing it, He said: h
Respondent (Mrs. Woolf) argues
that it must be presumed that de-
ceased did look and listen. In APP
prOpriate masses ii would be proper
to indulge this presumption. But
this is not one of them"
Mn effect, this decision holds that
Wooif, an ordinarily prudent man,
would not, In the absence Of testl-
mony, be presumed to have acted az
an ordinarily prudent man would
have acted. II holds that where q
farmer, travelling by team alone, 10
killed while attempting to cross
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 farmer. So Mrs. Woof was
pauperixed and the railroad COM
pany saved $17,5o0.
Many courts have held that, while
the rule of stop. look and listen ap,
plies to crossing railroad tracks on
private rights of way, 1t does not
apply to street car tracks occupying
public streets. 1t is held by them
that pedestrians and teamsters
have the same rights upon public
streets that street cars have, and
that If street car runs over a pc
destrian, 1t does so at its own peril,
the same as bicyclist.
For years this was the 4 rule in
Washington. The supreme court
laid it down in the Smith case in
1897, followed it 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 1t 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 new power arose in the
street railway life of Washington.
In 1900 the Seattle Electric Co. was
organized. and took over the street
railways of Seattle. II also began
meddling extensively in local and
state politics. And when the first
Seattle Electric Co. case, involving
this point, reached the supreme
court. that body bega nto hedge.
This was the Burian case. In the
Burian case the court said that fail
ure to look or listen before crossing
a street car track was not negli-
gence as a matter of law, but q
question to be submitted to the jury
to determine whether 1t was as a
matter of fact. So on the question
O negligence as a matter of fact, in
cases where juries found that. as n
matter OF fact, plaintiffs were not
negligent. the court began revers-
ing stop. look and listen cases. re-
versing them at the instigation Of
street railway companies. This was
the result In the Skinner case, In
the Phillips case. In the Coates case
and In the Criss case.
This line Of reversible reached its
climax In the Criss case In March,
1905. In the Crisis case the court
held that because Criss did not
stop, look, listen and get out Of the
way Of street car which had no
more right on the street than no
had, he was, when struck by the
car, "sulity Of contributory neoIi-
gencs, preciudinp q recovery"
Writers and speakers who charge
that machine politics Is dominated
by special interests are frequently
beseeched to point out the special
interests referred to. Thisi what
I am trying to do In this series of
stories.
Tomorrow's story will tell how
the supreme court related the taxes
of the Great Northern railroad.
a.