Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1911-04-11
Lane V. Portland Ry. Light & Power
Co., MultnOmah County,

Lane V. Portland Ry. Light & Power
Co., MultnOmah County.
Isaac Lane, appellant " Portland
Ry. Light & Power Co, corpora
ton, respondent Appeal from the
circuit court of Multnomah county
The Hon. G. U. Gantenbeln, Judge.
Argued and submitted March 49,
1911. D. c. Latourette, &c. D. G. D.
G. Latourette on the brief), attor-
neys for appellant S. G. Spencer,
Wilbur & Spencer, on the brief),
attorneys for respondent Bean, j.
Reversed. .ty,4, iIl
This is an action to recover dam
ages for alleged injury to the per-
son and property of plaintiff, result
ing from the collision of defendants
electric car with his team and wa
gon on November 10, 1908, in the
City of Portland, occurring on Grand
avenue, near its intersection with
Hawthorne avenue, upon which
street, running north and south, de-
fendant maintains two parallel street
car tracks.
At the time of the casualty a north
bound car was standing on the east
track, a short distance north of the
north line of Hawthorne avenue.
Plaintiff alleges that he was travel
ling north on the easterly side of
Grand avenue; that the space be-
tween the standing car and the east
curb Of the street was occupied and
blocked by teams and wagons, pre-
venting his passage on that side, so
that in order to proceed he was COM
PEELED to cross over to the west side
Of the street, passing the rear end of
defendants standing car, and that
while he was in the act Of so doing
his view was necessarily obstructed
by such car, so that he was prevent
ed from seeing south-bound car,
which was approaching "at a high,
and dangerous rate of speed along
defendants westerly track of said
avenue, and the defendant, by its Of
flcers, agents and motorman on said
car No. 1856 without warming, negli-
gently, carelessly and heedlessly
ran said car No 1855 at such speed
into and upon the wagon of this
plaintiff in which he was riding,
thereby colllding with the plaintiffs
wagon and thereby throwing plaintiff
out of the seat of said wagon and up
turning the same,' causing injury to
plaintiff and his wagon and team.
That defendant, by its agents on said
car could and should have seen
plaintiffs team emerging from be-
hind its standing car in time to have
Slowed up" and stopped its car, and
so prevented the collision and the re-
sultant injury to plaintiff, but that
defendant, disregarding plaintiffs
rights, failed and neglected to "slow
up" and, without fault on the part of
plaintiff, colllded with his team and
vehicle to his damage
Defendant, by its ansyer denies
the material allegations of the COM
plant, and by its first separate an
swer, after describing the accident,
alleges that plaintiff suddenly and
Unexpectedly, without any warning,
drove his team and wagon from out
behind the standing north-bound car
and Immediately In front of and into
said south-bound car, before the lat
ter could be stopped, although due
care and diligence in that behalf was
exercised the collision ensuing, and
that said accident was wholly un-
avOidable, and without negligence on
the part of defendant BY its second
separate answer defendant alleges
contributory negligence on the part
of plaintiff as the approximate cause
of the injury complained of, in that
he failed to look or listen for car
approaching on the west car track,
and, without exercising any precau-
ton for his own safety, suddenly
and Unexpectedly drove his team
from behind the standing north
bound car directly in front of the
south-bound car, so that before the
latter car could be stopped, although
due care and diligence In that behalf
was exercised, the collision occurred.
The reply put in issue the new mat
ter contained in the answer.
Upon jury being empaneled and
sworn to try the cause, plaintiffs
counsel made his opening statement,
which appears in full in the record.
After narrating to the Jury some of
the facts and circumstances sur
rounding the accident, what the
@laan-arnalllaAa1la-l