Plaintiff, a logger, hired defendant, a common carrier, to transport his crawler log loader from one jobsite to another. The loader was placed on defendant's lowboy trailer by plaintiff for the move. While the equipment was being moved, the truck bogged down on a freshly graveled, steep, logging road. Defendant and plaintiff's employees, who accompanied defendant during the move, secured a Caterpillar bulldozer to extract the truck from the mire. During the pulling operation, the 45-ton log loader cascaded from the trailer down an embankment where it came to rest in a damaged condition.
*259Plaintiff alleged the accident was caused by defendant, while defendant argued: (1) he was free from negligence; (2) plaintiff was contributorially negligent by failing to secure the loader properly when it was placed on the trailer; and (3) comparative negligence should reduce the award to plaintiff in the event of liability.
Defendant appeals from a jury verdict awarding plaintiff his damages in the amount of $13,988.11. Three issues are before us on appeal: (a) Is strict liability the proper standard of liability of a common carrier? (b) If so, may plaintiff's contributory negligence be used to reduce the award of damages under comparative negligence principles? and (c) Should the court have instructed the jury regarding the sudden emergency doctrine? We find no error on the part of the trial court and affirm.
Liability of the common carrier in this state is set forth in RCW 81.29.020:
Any common carrier receiving property for transportation . . . shall be liable . . . for any loss, damage or injury to such property caused by it, . . . and no contract, receipt, rule, regulation or other limitation of any character whatsoever, shall exempt such common carrier from the liability imposed; . . .
Strict liability of common carriers is the law in Washington. In McCurdy v. Union Pac. RR., 68 Wn.2d 457, 462, 413 P.2d 617 (1966), we stated:
The duty of a common carrier toward the property of others being transported is summarized in 13 C.J.S. Carriers § 40 at 84, as the duty to exercise such care as is required to protect that property from loss or injury during the transportation.
(Italics ours.)
The burden of proof is on the carrier to establish an affirmative defense. Only by a showing that it did not cause the damages may defendant escape liability. Western Mach. Exch. v. Northern Pac. RR., 142 Wash. 675, 254 P. 248 (1927).
*260Furthermore, if negligence by the plaintiff contributed to the damage, defendant cannot escape liability unless the negligence of plaintiff was the sole and only cause of the damage. McCurdy v. Union Pac. RR., supra at 464-65. Defendant cites Becker v. Tacoma Transit Co., 50 Wn.2d 688, 314 P.2d 638 (1957), and Peterson v. Seattle, 51 Wn.2d 187, 316 P.2d 904 (1957). These cases are not in point. They both concerned municipal bus companies and their passengers which are not covered by RCW 81.29.020.
Defendant contends the trial court erred in not giving instructions to the jury regarding comparative negligence and apportioning damages between the parties. He refers us to RCW 4.22.010:
Contributory negligence shall not bar recovery in an action by any person or his legal representative to recover damages caused by negligence resulting in death or in injury to person or property, but any damages allowed shall be diminished in proportion to the percentage of negligence attributable to the party recovering.
It is not applicable to this case.
The problem the statute was intended to correct — the use of the contributory negligence of the plaintiff as an absolute defense by defendant — has never existed in actions against common carriers. McCurdy v. Union Pac. R.R., supra. By its terms, RCW 4.22.010 is meant to apply only where the contributory negligence of plaintiff might otherwise bar recovery. Since, in common carrier cases, under RCW 81.29.020 it is not the contributory negligence of plaintiff as a concurring or cooperative cause of the injury but only his negligence as a sole cause which will relieve defendant from liability, RCW 4.22.010 does not apply.
Finally, in the words of RCW 81.29.020, the liability of the carrier is not premised upon negligence but rather causation alone. RCW 4.22.010 limits its applicability to actions "to recover damages caused by negligence". Thus, it does not apply to actions by shippers against common carriers for damage to property transported by the carrier. See *261also Teagle v. Fischer & Porter Co., 89 Wn.2d 149, 570 P.2d 438 (1977).
As to defendant's contention the trial court erred in refusing the requested instruction on the emergency doctrine, in Zook v. Baier, 9 Wn. App. 708, 514 P.2d 923 (1973), it was noted the essential element required to invoke the emergency doctrine is confrontation by a sudden peril requiring instinctive reaction. Here there was no showing by defendant that instinctive reaction was necessitated when the truck and equipment became bogged down. The parties had ample time to consider various alternatives in extricating the equipment, and the emergency doctrine is not applicable.
Affirmed.
Wright, C.J., and Hamilton, Stafford, and Horowitz, JJ., concur.
Rosellini, J., concurs in the result.