The Spokane press. [volume] (Spokane, Wash.) 1902-1939, 1910-10-29
versed on a question which was
not before the court.


not before the court.
The attorney for Williams was
win G. Graves of Spokane, a prom
netn corporation lawyer, first
friend of the court, champion of the
convention system of nominating
Judges, and one of the supporters in
the 1909 legislature of the judicial
convention bill. Graves petitioned
for a second -rehearing and in his
petition said:
"a, have heard Of courts which
overruled, with or without notice,
their former decisions. This 10 the
first time | ever heard Of .. court
that overruled In the concluding
portion Of an opinion that which It
had said in the opening.
1.-THE evil that me ndo lives after
them. For the present this evil
seems to fall most heavily upon my
client. But In the days to come the
overthrow Of long established land
marks, tn confusion OF practice
and the loss Of confidence In the
courts that Is bound to result will
fall a. weishtiIy upon the court a.
upon him."
But four members OF the court.
in decision by Root. declined to
reopen the case. declined to remedy
this glaring evil. favoring the Great
Northern railroad. with threatened
a loss of confidence in the court
We now come to the repeal by
the court of the law Of stop. look
and listen.
Six years ago q farmer named
Woolf. going along county road
in Charge county in farm wagon.
undertook to drive across the tracks
of the Washington Railroad & Nav.
igation Co., was struck by passing
train and killed. Mrs. Woolf sued
the railroad company for his death
and In the trial court was given q
verdict for y17.500. The company
appealed, and the supreme court.
after listening to the arguments of
the able counsel for the railroads,
said In effect:
MRS. Wool, we are very
sorry for you, but the railroad
company did not kill your hus-
band. He killed himself. His
death was the result Of his own
negligence or intention. He 10
an admirable example Of the
doctrine Of contributory neQIi-
pence. You cannot recover. n
this Impoverished you, we, Of
course, cannot help II, we must
Give the railroad company the
benefit Of the law, and the law
says your husband killed him
self"
Now, let us examine what the
law was, that is. what It was before
the supreme court listened to the
attorneys for this railroad, what 1t
was as the attorneys for Mrs. Woolf
found 1t in the earlier decisions of
Atbe supreme court of Washington.
~ The question here was whether
Woolf had been careless, whether
he had taken the usual precautions
of an ordinarily prudent man. Other
courts had said that crossing a rail-
road track is dangerous. that the
ordinarily prudent man. before
crossing one, will stop, look and
listen, to see whether there is a
train approaching. Woolf was a
man. SO far as the court knew, Of
ordinary prudence.
lAin the case Of N. p. Railway Co.
1lolmes, the Washington terri
torIai supreme. court had held that
= twas not always negligence not to
stop, look and listen before crossing
q railroad track, that whether u
was depended upon the circum.
stances. Holmes, who had neg
lected TO do 10, was given q verdict
Of $4,000. In the case Of Steele
W. N. p. Railway Co., II was not
proven that steele stopped to look
and listen. Steele was a II year old
boy, but the court held that ne was
q person Of ordinary prudence, that
being person Of ordinary prudence
II was presumed that he acted ~ an
ordinarily prudent person would
act, that ne looked and listened.
Well Woolf was q man Of ordi-
nary prudence. So In the trial of