Easterly v. Eatonville Lumber Co.
Citations
- 60 Wash. 647
- 111 P. 876
- 1910 Wash. LEXIS 1115
Syllabus
<p>Master and Servant — Promise to Repair — Pleading. Tbe objection. cannot be raised that a promise to repair was not made by defendant’s vice principal, where tbe answer fails to deny allegations ■of tbe complaint that tbe employees making tbe promise were defendant’s foreman and bead millwright; and tbe evidence showed that they did make tbe promises.</p> <p>Same — Promise—Contemplation of Continuance. A promise to remedy an improper construction of a sawdust chute in k shingle mill which required increased subjection to danger in releasing tbe sawdust, must have been made in contemplation of tbe operator’s continuance at work, where there was nothing said about abandoning tbe machine or permitting it to remain idle.</p> <p>Same — Contributory Negligence — Question foe Jury. The negligence of a shingle weaver in releasing sawdust in a chute near the saw with a short stick, after a promise by the master to repair the place, is for the jury, where that was the usual method.</p> <p>Appeal — Review—Waiver of Objection. The finding of a jury upon an issue, under proper instructions framed by the appellant, is-conclusive and precludes objection that the issue should have been determined by the court.</p> <p>Master and Servant — Contributory Negligence — Question for Jury. A shingle weaver is not guilty of contributory negligence, as a matter of law, in releasing sawdust in a chute without stopping the saw, where it was not usual to do so, and would have consumed much time, and it appears that he used a short stick for the purpose according to the usual method, and only did so for a reasonable time after objection and promise to repair.</p> <p>Appeal — Review—Verdict. The verdict of a jury upon conflicting evidence is conclusive on appeal.</p> <p>Damages — Personal Injuries — Excessive Verdict. A verdict for ' $2,750 is not excessive, where a shingle weaver, 24 years of age, lost two fingers and sustained an injury to his thumb, impairing his earning capacity to the ext
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that the trial court did not err by refusing a depraved-heart murder instruction where the “overwhelming evidence” showed that the defendant “acted with premeditation”
- “Because only a single error occurred, there are no errors that could combine with other errors to establish cumulative error.”
- “It was within the province of the jury to weigh the facts and circumstances and determine whether the State had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.”
- \[T]he jury found that all four factors were present in this case.\
- “Rule 403 is an ultimate filter through which all otherwise admissible evidence must pass.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Crow
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.