Jensen v. Shaw Show Case Co.

Citations

• 76 Wash. 419
• 136 P. 698
• 1913 Wash. LEXIS 1831

Syllabus

<p>Trial — Province of Court and Jury. Under Const., art. 1, § 21, providing that tbe right to trial by jury shall remain inviolate, the courts cannot trench on the province of the jury upon questions of fact if there is any evidence, direct or circumstantial, to warrant their verdict.</p> <p>Master and Servant — Injury to Servant — Guarding Saw Under Factory Act — Evidence—Question for Jury. In an action for the death of an operator of a ripsaw, who was killed when the board pinched and was kicked back by the saw, whether the saw was properly guarded, under the factory act, is a question for the jury, where it appears that the saw was supplied with a hood, approved by the commissioner of labor, but experts testified that the hood was inadequate and impracticable, and that a spreader would have prevented an accident through pinching and kicking back; since the factory act, Rem. & Bal. Code, § 6593, makes the labor commissioner’s certificate of approval only prima facie evidence of the sufficiency of the guard, and the question is usually for the jury unless reasonable minds could not differ.</p> <p>Same — Injury to Servant — Death—Proximate Cause — Evidence —Sufficiency. The cause of the death of the operator of a ripsaw is not left to mere speculation and conjecture, but is for the jury, where it appears that the master had negligently failed to provide a spreader to prevent the board from pinching and being kicked back by the saw, the board the deceased had been sawing had marks indicating to men of experience that it had pinched and was hurled against the deceased, who was killed by being struck in the abdomen, and that the marks on the board, and the force with which it must have been thrown precluded the inference that it had come in contact with the top of the saw through the negligence of the deceased.</p> <p>Mount, J., dissents.</p>