Bailey v. Cascade Timber Co.

Citations

• 35 Wash. 295
• 77 P. 377
• 1904 Wash. LEXIS 448

Syllabus

<p>Master and Servant — Negligence — Sake Appliances — Instructions — Suppicienct. In an action for personal injuries sustained by an employe upon tbe breaking of a swamp book, instructions sufficiently submit to tbe jury tbe question wbetber defendant furnished proper appliances, where tbe jury are told that tbe burden of proof as to wbetber defendant furnished a reasonably safe swamp book was upon tbe plaintiff, and that tbe plaintiff could not recover unless that was shown to be tbe proximate cause of the injury.</p> <p>Same — Selection op Appliances — Appeal—Decision—Law op the Case. Tbe supreme court having decided upon a former appeal that tbe removal of a heavy tank was not a mere ordinary detail of tbe work of a logging crew that could be delegated to fellow-servants of the plaintiff, the same becomes the law of the case and is conclusive.</p> <p>Same — Fellow-Servants—Delegated Duties — Immaterial by Whom Discharged. The supreme court having decided upon a former appeal that a hook tender charged with the duty of selecting a proper swamp hook to be used in moving a heavy tank is not a fellow-servant, hut a vice-principal with respect to such duties, it is immaterial whether that duty was discharged by him or by some other employe, as in either case it is a duty owed by the master.</p> <p>Damages — Excessive Verdict — Power oe Trial Court to Remit Excess — New Trial. Where the trial court was of the opinion that the damages for personal injuries awarded by the jury were excessive, it has power to require the plaintiff to remit the excessive amount or submit to a new trial.</p> <p>Damages — When Excessive. Where $6,000 was awarded for personal injuries sustained in the fracture of the ulna and a dislocation of the head of the radius, resulting in limiting the turning motion of the forearm, but which did not destroy the usefulness of the arm or greatly lessen plaintiff’s earning ability, a finding of the trial court that the verdict was excessive and should he