Lindblom v. Hazel Mill Co.

Citations

• 91 Wash. 333
• 157 P. 998
• 1916 Wash. LEXIS 1066

Syllabus

<p>Master and Servant — Injuries to Servant — Contributory Negligence — Unsafe Methods — Question for Jury. It is a question for the jury to determine whether an inexperienced youth, working for one week as offbearer at an edger, was guilty of contributory negligence in stepping into the space between the edger and the rolls and placing his feet on the base of the edger frame to push a heavy cant, instead of adopting a safer method by taking advantage of the momentum before it had stopped, where he had received no instructions and testified that he had no knowledge of a safer way; and it is immaterial that he knew that unguarded saws were there where if his foot slipped they would probably injure him, since it was not incumbent on him to keep them at all times in mind.</p> <p>Same — Factory Act — Guarding Saws — Evidence — Inspector’s Certificate. The fact of a factory inspector’s passing a mill having an open backed edger without guard for the saws is only prima facie evidence that the saws were guarded where practicable in compliance with the factory act.</p> <p>Same — Factory Act — Guarding Saws — Feasibility — Evidence. The fact that larger edgers were safely operated with a board at the back to guard the saws, and that a smaller edger was operated for some months while so guarded, is competent to show that it was feasible to use the guard on the smaller machine without added danger to others.</p> <p>Negligence — Comparative Negligence — Injuries to Servants— Instructions. Under the workmen’s compensation act, 3 Rem. & Ral. Code, § 6604-8, adopting the doctrine of comparative negligence in certain cases, an instruction is as favorable to defendant as the law warrants, where the jury were told that there may be a recovery notwithstanding the negligence of the plaintiff, if he was exercising ordinary care, and his negligence was slight in comparison with defendant’s negligence, and if so, and the defendant’s negligence was gross in comparison, and the plaintiff, a