Emery v. City of Tacoma

Citations

• 71 Wash. 132
• 127 P. 851
• 1912 Wash. LEXIS 707

Syllabus

<p>Master and Servant — Fellow Servants — -Incompetency—Evidence — Sufficiency. There is sufficient evidence of the incompetence of a man employed as a nozzleman with a hydraulic giant, working under a high pressure, where it appears that he had worked for thirty days with a short straight nozzle, which took no particular skill, that the employee was excitable, and upon putting on a deflector, which made the work dangerous and required an experienced and cool man to control it, he objected to using the deflector as a “newfangled arrangement” and too complicated; any evidence of inexperience being proof of incompetence where experience was necessary</p> <p>Same — Employment of Incompetent Fellow Servant — Evidence of Negligence — Sufficiency. Reasonable care in the employment of a nozzleman for a hydraulic giant equipped with a deflector, which would be dangerous if intrusted to an inexperienced man, is not shown by the fact that upon engaging him, he was asked if he had experience as a nozzleman and replied in the affirmative, where the nozzle then in use was a straight nozzle, which was simple and required no skill to control it, and he was not asked if he had had experience with a deflector.</p>