Jancko v. West Coast Manufacturing & Investment Co.
Citations
- 34 Wash. 556
- 76 P. 78
- 1904 Wash. LEXIS 383
Syllabus
<p>Master and Servant — Negligence — Dangers From Vibration of Saw — Duty to Warn Inexperienced Employee. A master who employs a wholly inexperienced man to work in a shingle mill, and to remove slabs lodged near a saw, owes a greater duty to warn him of the danger of striking the saw and causing it to vibrate, than would he the case if the servant were experienced.</p> <p>Same — Assumption of Risk. It cannot he said as a matter of law that a wholly inexperienced servant assumes the risks from the vibration of a saw, when he testifies that he did not know it would vibrate and one expert testified that there was nothing to indicate that it would.</p> <p>Same — Injury to Inexperienced Servant in Removing Slabs From Saw — Defective Appliances — Light—Failure to Warn— Contributory Negligence — Knowledge of Vibration of Saw— Evidence — Sufficiency—Question for- Jury. It is a question for the jury as to whether the master was negligent in failing to give warning of the dangers, and in failing to provide sufficient light, whether the appliances were defective, and whether the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, where it appears that he was set to work upon a knee-bolter and instructed to remove slabs that became lodged near the saw by inserting his hand into a six inch space beside the saw and through an opening twenty inches wide, that the space to be safe should have been thirty-six inches wide, that striking the saw with a slab in removing it would cause the saw to vibrate from side to side three or four inches, and three of plaintiff’s fingers were cut off by such vibration of tbe saw in an attempt to remove a slab in tbe manner that bad been illustrated to bim by tbe operator, whose directions tbe foreman bad instructed bim to follow, that tbe place was dark and an electric light over tbe saw Was not lighted, and that tbe plaintiff did not know that tbe saw would vibrate, and was wholly without experience, to tbe defendant’s knowledge, and received no war
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- \it is a well-settled rule that the provision in a policy relative to the consent of the insurer to the transfer of an interest therein does not apply to an assignment after loss\
- \it is a well-settled rule that the provision in a policy relative to the consent of the insurer to the transfer of an interest therein does not apply to an assignment after loss\
- “The policy was assigned after loss, and it is a well-settled rule that the provision in a policy relative to the consent of the insurer to the transfer of an interest therein does not apply to an assignment after loss.”
- “The policy was assigned after loss, and it is a well-settled rule that the provision in a policy relative to the consent of the insurer to the transfer of an interest therein does not apply to an assignment after loss.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Hadley
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.