Conover v. Neher-Ross Co.

Citations

• 38 Wash. 172
• 80 P. 281
• 1905 Wash. LEXIS 1141

Syllabus

<p>Master and Servant—Negligence—Employment oe Incompetent Engineer—Injury to Oiler by Starting Machinery Without Warning—Complaint—Sueeiciency. In an action for personal injuries sustained through the employment of an incompetent co-servant, the complaint sufficiently alleges the general incompetence of an engineer when it is alleged that he “was negligent and incompetent in the discharge of his duties as engineer, by not giving the warning signals when starting the engine,” and the same is not affected by following the allegation with the specification of two instances when he failed to give the signals.</p> <p>Same. In such a case the complaint sufficiently alleges negligence in continuing the employment of such engineer where it is alleged that defendant knew of the two prior instances, that the rules required the engineer to give warning signals before starting the machinery, and that plaintiff was injured while oiling the machinery, by reason of such engineer’s starting the machinery without warning.</p> <p>Same—Incompetency op Engineer—Evidence op Two Prior Acts op Negligence—Admissibility. In an action by an oiler for personal injuries sustained by reason of the employment of an incompetent engineer, who started the machinery without giving a warning, contrary to the rules, evidence is admissible that on two prior occasions the engineer started the machinery without warning, and that defendant had knowledge thereof, since it cannot be said, as a matter of law, that two prior acts do not constitute a series of acts showing general incompetency.</p> <p>Same—Evidence—Time Books—To Show Absence op Workman—Best and Secondary Evidence. In an action for personal injuries in which plaintiff claimed to have been working for defendant on a certain day, the defendant’s time book, offered to show that plaintiff did not work on such day, is properly ■excluded, where the defendant’s officers who testified were not questioned on the subject, since the defendant’s knowledge