company rule in West Virginia

2001See, e.g., Babick v. Oregon Arena Corp., 160 Or.App. 140 , 980 P.2d 1147 , review allowed, 329 Or. 357 , 994 P.2d 123 (1999) (unpublished table decision) (finding claim of imminent danger renders wrongful discharge claim justiciable); Ellis v. City of Seattle, 142 Wash.2d 450 , 13 P.3d 1065 (2000) (en banc) (upholding employee's claim of wrongful discharge against employer who fired him after he refused to disable fire alarm system that interfered with quality of arena's sound system); Gardner v. Loomis Armored Inc., 128 Wash.2d 931 , 913 P.2d 377 (1996) (en banc) (answering, in the affirmativ

2001See, e.g., Babick v. Oregon Arena Corp., 160 Or.App. 140 , 980 P.2d 1147 , review allowed, 329 Or. 357 , 994 P.2d 123 (1999) (unpublished table decision) (finding claim of imminent danger renders wrongful discharge claim justiciable); Ellis v. City of Seattle, 142 Wash.2d 450 , 13 P.3d 1065 (2000) (en banc) (upholding employee's claim of wrongful discharge against employer who fired him after he refused to disable fire alarm system that interfered with quality of arena’s sound system); Gardner v. Loomis Armored Inc., 128 Wash.2d 931 , 913 P.2d 377 (1996) (en banc) (answering, in the affirmativ

2001See, e.g., Babick v. Oregon Arena Corp., 160 Or.App. 140 , 980 P.2d 1147 , review allowed, 329 Or. 357 , 994 P.2d 123 (1999) (unpublished table decision) (finding claim of imminent danger renders wrongful discharge claim justiciable); Ellis v. City of Seattle, 142 Wash.2d 450 , 13 P.3d 1065 (2000) (en banc) (upholding employee's claim of wrongful discharge against employer who fired him after he refused to disable fire alarm system that interfered with quality of arena's sound system); Gardner v. Loomis Armored Inc., 128 Wash.2d 931 , 913 P.2d 377 (1996) (en banc) (answering, in the affirmativ

2001See, e.g., Babick v. Oregon Arena Corp., 160 Or.App. 140 , 980 P.2d 1147 , review allowed, 329 Or. 357 , 994 P.2d 123 (1999) (unpublished table decision) (finding claim of imminent danger renders wrongful discharge claim justiciable); Ellis v. City of Seattle, 142 Wash.2d 450 , 13 P.3d 1065 (2000) (en banc) (upholding employee's claim of wrongful discharge against employer who fired him after he refused to disable fire alarm system that interfered with quality of arena’s sound system); Gardner v. Loomis Armored Inc., 128 Wash.2d 931 , 913 P.2d 377 (1996) (en banc) (answering, in the affirmativ

2001See, e.g., Babick v. Oregon Arena Corp., 160 Or.App. 140 , 980 P.2d 1147 , review allowed, 329 Or. 357 , 994 P.2d 123 (1999) (unpublished table decision) (finding claim of imminent danger renders wrongful discharge claim justiciable); Ellis v. City of Seattle, 142 Wash.2d 450 , 13 P.3d 1065 (2000) (en banc) (upholding employee's claim of wrongful discharge against employer who fired him after he refused to disable fire alarm system that interfered with quality of arena's sound system); Gardner v. Loomis Armored Inc., 128 Wash.2d 931 , 913 P.2d 377 (1996) (en banc) (answering, in the affirmativ

2001See, e.g., Babick v. Oregon Arena Corp., 160 Or.App. 140 , 980 P.2d 1147 , review allowed, 329 Or. 357 , 994 P.2d 123 (1999) (unpublished table decision) (finding claim of imminent danger renders wrongful discharge claim justiciable); Ellis v. City of Seattle, 142 Wash.2d 450 , 13 P.3d 1065 (2000) (en banc) (upholding employee's claim of wrongful discharge against employer who fired him after he refused to disable fire alarm system that interfered with quality of arena’s sound system); Gardner v. Loomis Armored Inc., 128 Wash.2d 931 , 913 P.2d 377 (1996) (en banc) (answering, in the affirmativ

2001See, e.g., Babick v. Oregon Arena Corp., 160 Or.App. 140 , 980 P.2d 1147 , review allowed, 329 Or. 357 , 994 P.2d 123 (1999) (unpublished table decision) (finding claim of imminent danger renders wrongful discharge claim justiciable); Ellis v. City of Seattle, 142 Wash.2d 450 , 13 P.3d 1065 (2000) (en banc) (upholding employee's claim of wrongful discharge against employer who fired him after he refused to disable fire alarm system that interfered with quality of arena's sound system); Gardner v. Loomis Armored Inc., 128 Wash.2d 931 , 913 P.2d 377 (1996) (en banc) (answering, in the affirmativ

2001See, e.g., Babick v. Oregon Arena Corp., 160 Or.App. 140 , 980 P.2d 1147 , review allowed, 329 Or. 357 , 994 P.2d 123 (1999) (unpublished table decision) (finding claim of imminent danger renders wrongful discharge claim justiciable); Ellis v. City of Seattle, 142 Wash.2d 450 , 13 P.3d 1065 (2000) (en banc) (upholding employee's claim of wrongful discharge against employer who fired him after he refused to disable fire alarm system that interfered with quality of arena’s sound system); Gardner v. Loomis Armored Inc., 128 Wash.2d 931 , 913 P.2d 377 (1996) (en banc) (answering, in the affirmativ

1996We look also to our decision in Spence v. Browning Motor Freight Lines, Inc., 138 W.Va. 748 , 77 S.E.2d 806 (1953), where a minor was injured while riding as a passenger in direct contravention of a company rule prohibiting nonemployees from riding in its motor vehicles.

1996We look also to our decision in Spence v. Browning Motor Freight Lines, Inc., 138 W.Va. 748 , 77 S.E.2d 806 (1953), where a minor was injured while riding as a passenger in direct contravention of a company rule prohibiting nonemployees from riding in its motor vehicles.

1924Co. v. Huxoll, 245 U. S. 535 , affirming the sames case in 99 Neb. 170 , it was said: “If the failure to have the brake power in working.order contributed ‘in whole or in part’ to cause the death of deceased, the plaintiff in error would be liable in damages, and neither contributory negligence nor assumption of risk could avail the company as a defense or in diminishing the damages.” See, also, Railway Co. v. Campbell, 241 U. S. 497 ; and 41 L.

1924Co. v. Huxoll, 245 U. S. 535 , affirming the sames case in 99 Neb. 170 , it was said: “If the failure to have the brake power in working.order contributed ‘in whole or in part’ to cause the death of deceased, the plaintiff in error would be liable in damages, and neither contributory negligence nor assumption of risk could avail the company as a defense or in diminishing the damages.” See, also, Railway Co. v. Campbell, 241 U. S. 497 ; and 41 L.

1924Co. v. Huxoll, 245 U. S. 535 , affirming the sames case in 99 Neb. 170 , it was said: “If the failure to have the brake power in working.order contributed ‘in whole or in part’ to cause the death of deceased, the plaintiff in error would be liable in damages, and neither contributory negligence nor assumption of risk could avail the company as a defense or in diminishing the damages.” See, also, Railway Co. v. Campbell, 241 U. S. 497 ; and 41 L.

1904There was occasion to consider this question in Peoria v. Hall, 12 Mich. 202 , and it was held that an insurance of partnership property by one partner in his own name could not be made to embrace the interest of the other partner, though it was written by the agent with full knowledge of the fact.

1898Thompson v. Insurance Co., 136 U. S., 287 , (10 Sup. Ct. 1019,) held that a promise to pay was a waiver, and barred the company from this defense.

1885So far as iny examinations go, the following are the authorities sustaining this first view, viz : “When the transit is ended and the carrier has placed the goods in his warehouse to await delivery to the consignee, his liability as carrier is ended also, and he is responsible as warehouseman only. ” Thomas v. Boston and Providence Railroad Company, 10 Md. 472 ; Norway Plains Co. v. Boston and Maine Railroad Co., 1 Gray 270 ; Brands v. Dubuque & Sioux City Railroad Co., 25 Iowa 60 ; Jackson v. Sacramento Valley Railroad Co., 28 Cal. 268 ; Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Alexander 20 Ill. 23 ;

1885So far as iny examinations go, the following are the authorities sustaining this first view, viz : “When the transit is ended and the carrier has placed the goods in his warehouse to await delivery to the consignee, his liability as carrier is ended also, and he is responsible as warehouseman only. ” Thomas v. Boston and Providence Railroad Company, 10 Md. 472 ; Norway Plains Co. v. Boston and Maine Railroad Co., 1 Gray 270 ; Brands v. Dubuque & Sioux City Railroad Co., 25 Iowa 60 ; Jackson v. Sacramento Valley Railroad Co., 28 Cal. 268 ; Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Alexander 20 Ill. 23 ;