Erickson v. E. J. McNeeley & Co.

Citations

• 41 Wash. 509
• 84 P. 3

Syllabus

<p>Master and Servant — Negligence—Assumption op Risk — Unguarded Saw. Under tbe provisions of tbe factory act, an employee does not assume tbe risk of injury from an unguarded saw, if it could bave been properly guarded, in wbicb case tbe master is guilty of negligence as a matter of law.</p> <p>Same — Possibility op Guarding Saw — Question por Jury. It is for tbe jury to determine whether a saw could bave been properly guarded where witnesses testified that a proper guard could bave been placed over or at tbe side of tbe saw at slight expense without any inconvenience or detriment to tbe operation of tbe saw, although this was disputed by other witnesses.</p> <p>Same — Working With Back to Saw — Contributory Negligence. A power bolter’s helper whose duty it is to place shingle blocks on tbe saw carriage, is not guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law, by reason of bis turning bis back to tbe saw, striking bis book into a block weighing 75 to 100 pounds, and pulling with sufficient force to pull out tbe hook and fall backward into tbe saw, where there was evidence to tbe effect that tbe working space was filled up with blocks, that it was the customary way of placing blocks on the carriage, and necessary to have his back to the saw under the circumstances.</p> <p>Evidence — Proof of Guarding Saw After Accident — When Admissible. Upon an issue as to whether a saw could have been advantageously guarded under the factory act, it is not error to admit evidence that after the accident it was guarded, where the evidence was offered only for the purpose of showing that the saw could have been guarded, and the jury were instructed to consider it only for that purpose.</p> <p>Master and Servant — Injury Prom Unguarded Saw — Defenses— Independent Contractor — Evidence—Question of Pact. A corporation, the owner of a shingle mill, cannot avoid responsibility for inuries to employees by showing that the mill had been leased to an independent contractor who was in f