Bell v. Washington Cedar Shingle Co.

Citations

• 8 Wash. 27
• 35 P. 405
• 1894 Wash. LEXIS 5

Syllabus

<p>MASTER AND SERVANT — DEFECTIVE APPLIANCES — ALTERATIONS SUBSEQUENT TO INJURY — EVIDENCE — INSTRUCTIONS — EXCEPTIONS.</p> <p>In. an action to recover for injuries received on account of the negligence of the master in providing imperfect machinery and appliances, evidence is incompetent for the purpose of showing that changes had been made in such machinery after the injury to plaintiff.</p> <p>In such a case, where defendant’s witness has testified that the machinery in use at the time the accident occurred was properly constructed and in good condition, it is not proper cross examination to question him as to changes made subsequent to the accident.</p> <p>In such a case, where testimony as to alterations has been admitted, it is error to refuse defendant’s request for an instruction that the fact of such.alterations “after the accident in question is not a matter from which you are at liberty to infer that it was out of repair, imperfect or unsafe at the time the accident occurred.”</p> <p>An exception'to the refusal of the court to give requested instructions is sufficient when in the following form: “The court refused to give instructions requested by the defendant numbered 1, 3, 4, 6, 9 and 10, to the refusal of the court to give each of said instructions number 1, 3, 4, 6, 9 and 10, the defendant then and there duly excepted, and exceptions allowed by the court.”</p>