Hoveland v. Hall Bros. Marine Railway & Shipbuilding Co.

Citations

• 41 Wash. 164
• 82 P. 1090
• 1905 Wash. LEXIS 1086

Syllabus

<p>Master and Servant — Negligence—Factory Act — Assumption op Risk. The defense of the assumption of risks from an unguarded shaft coupling cannot be raised where the defendant has violated the factory act requiring the coupling to be guarded.</p> <p>Same — Proximate Cause op Injury — Finding op Jury. Where an employee slipped and stumbled while attempting to reach over an unguarded coupling on a revolving shaft, and the jury were instructed that the plaintiff could not recover if the accident would not have happened but for the condition of the ground, if known to the plaintiff, a finding for the plaintiff determines that the condition of the ground was not the proximate cause of the accident.</p> <p>Same — Violation op Factory Act — Question op Law. There is a violation of the factory act, as a matter of law, where couplings on a revolving shaft, about two and one-half feet above the ground, in a blacksmith shop, are wholly exposed and unguarded at a place where men are required to work.</p> <p>Same — Appeal—Review—Harmless Error. Where the failure to provide a guard for a coupling is, as a matter of law, a violation of the factory act, the defendant cannot complain of instructions submitting to a jury the question of the necessity of a guard:</p>