Marks v. Hurley Mason Co.

Citations

• 73 Wash. 437
• 131 P. 1122
• 1913 Wash. LEXIS 1617

Syllabus

<p>Master and Servant — Injury to Servant — Fellow Servants— Vice Principal — Question por Juey. In an action for injuries to an employee through, the negligent act of another employee, whether the latter was a vice principal or a fellow servant is for the jury, where the evidence as to his duties as a foreman in charge of the work was in direct conflict.</p> <p>Same — • Negligence op Foreman — Vice Principal — Details op Work. Where a foreman directed an employee to stand upon a brace, and then without warning loosened the brace and directly caused his fall and injury, his act is not a mere detail of the work of a fellow servant, hut the positive act of a vice principal for which the master is liable.</p> <p>Same — Negligencet—Saee Place. The rule of nonliability for the fall of temporary scaffolds when erected by the men does not apply to a case where a foreman in charge of the erection of concrete forms directed an assistant in the work to stand upon a brace, and then without warning and by his positive act loosened the brace and caused the employee to fall.</p> <p>Damages — Personal Injuries — Excessive Verdict. A verdict for $12,500 for injuries sustained by a robust man, 34 years of age, earning four dollars a day, is not excessive, where he suffered an injury to the spine which experts testified would be permanent and result in total paralysis of the lower limbs.</p>