Harris v. Brown's Bay Logging Co.
Citations
- 57 Wash. 8
- 106 P. 152
- 1910 Wash. LEXIS 684
Syllabus
<p>Railroads — Obstructions Near Track — Negligence—Evidence— Sufficiency. It is actionable negligence to knowingly leave a skid, used for loading a donkey engine, so near the tracks of a logging railway that it was liable to be struck by a train of logs passing while men were working at the place and liable to be struck by the skid.</p> <p>Master and Servant — Contributory Negligence — Apparent Dangers — Question for Jury. A section hand is not guilty of contributory negligence, as a matter of law, and does not have equal knowledge with the company as to the liability of a train of cars to strike a skid used to load a donkey engine and left near the track, where he testified that he did not know of the fact, he had worked for the company but a few hours, and knew nothing of the manner in which logs were loaded on the cars, while the foreman knew that it was liable to be struck by logs, although the engine could pass in safety.</p> <p>Master and Servant — Safe Place — Duty of Master — Instructions. An instruction that the master owes the “positive” duty to provide its employees with a reasonably safe place to work is not objectionable as making the master an insurer.</p> <p>Master and Servant — Contributory Negligence — Obvious Dangers — Instructions. Where the contributory negligence of a new section hand depended upon whether he had knowledge or might have known that a skid near the track was liable to be struck by a passing logging train, a fact known to the company, it is within the issues and proper to give an instruction as to the duties of the parties where they do not stand upon an equal footing as to the obvious or apparent dangers.</p> <p>Same — Trial—Request for Instructions. An objection that an instruction as to the duties of a master where he and the servant do not stand upon an equal footing is misleading in not further instructing that there can be no recovery if both are equally ignorant of a danger, can only be made where there was a request for th
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- no due process violation in destruction of blood sample that had shown inculpatory test results four times; sample was not apparently exculpatory
- under Mississippi Rule of Appellate Procedure 17(h), this Court may limit the question for review upon grant of certiora-ri
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Fullerton
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.