Skip to main content
· 1/5/1904

Gaudie v. Northern Lumber Co.

Citations

  • 34 Wash. 34
  • 74 P. 1009
  • 1904 Wash. LEXIS 306

Syllabus

<p>Master and Servant — Negligence—-Safe Place — Pushing Car of Lumber — Injury to Servant Caught Between Cabs — Contributory Negligence and Assumption of Risks — Evidence—Question for Jury. It is for tbe jury to pass upon questions of negligence, contributory negligence and assumption of risks, where tbe plaintiff was injured between two cars of lumber by reason of projecting sticks while assisting to push a car from the defendant’s dry kiln, when it appears that the kiln was dark and it was difficult to see until after being inside some time, that the men were required to work rapidly on account of the excessive heat, and to look carefully where they stepped, that the sticks were longer than usual and not uniformly piled, and the plaintiff had not assisted in piling the lumber and would not have been injured if care had been exercised in piling the same, and the piling was done under the direction of defendant’s foreman.</p> <p>Same — Piling Lumber — Foreman a Vice-Principal. In such a case, no question of fellow servants is involved, as the foreman under whose direction the lumber is piled is a vice-principal, charged with the master’s duty in respect thereto.</p> <p>Same — Warning — Evidence in Rebuttal — Contradicting Cross-Examination op Party’s Own Witness. In an action for personal injuries, where the cross-examination of plaintiff’s witness leaves the impression that plaintiff had been warned of the danger, it is proper to permit the plaintiff to testify in rebuttal that he had received no warning.</p> <p>Trial — Verdict—Contributory Negligence — General Verdict When not Inconsistent With Special Finding. A general verdict for plaintiff finding that he was not guilty of contributory negligence in pushing upon a car from the side, is not inconsistent with a special finding that he could have avoided the danger by going in front of or behind the car, since the special verdict did not find that the danger in working at the side was known or obvious.</p> <p>Sam

Judges: Hadley

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced 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.