Cook v. Pittock & Leadbetter Lumber Co.

Citations

• 51 Wash. 316
• 98 P. 1130
• 1909 Wash. LEXIS 1184

Syllabus

<p>Master and Servant — Assumption op Risks — Promise to Repair —Definiteness. A promise by a foreman to repair a chute as soon as he could do so, is sufficiently definite to relieve a servant in a mill from the assumption of risk.</p> <p>Same — Reasonable Time for Repairs — Questions for Jury. Whether ten days was an unreasonable period for a servant to rely upon a promise to repair a chute, involving danger when occasionally cleaned out, is a question for the jury, where the repairs were in progress at the time of the accident and it was not shown when they were commenced.</p> <p>Master and Servant — Injury to Servant — Defective Machinery —Evidence—Admissibility. In an action for injuries sustained while cleaning out a defective chute for carrying away waste, requiring close proximity to the saws, it is not error to receive evidence of unguarded gears at another place, introduced for the purpose of showing that the chute could not be safely cleaned from that place, no recovery being sought on account of the unguarded gears.</p> <p>Same. In an action for injuries sustained by a servant while performing an act alleged and testified by him to be his duty to perform, it is not reversible error to admit evidence of whose duty it was before plaintiff went to work there.</p> <p>Same — Trial—Instructions—Comment on Evidence. It is not error to refuse requested instructions to the effect that a servant admitted that he knew and appreciated the dangers from working around an edger, where there was no such admission in the pleadings, as the court had no right to comment on the evidence.</p>