McIntosh v. Saw Mill Phoenix

Citations

• 49 Wash. 152
• 94 P. 930
• 1908 Wash. LEXIS 542

Syllabus

<p>Master and Servant — Guarding Machinery — Notice by Servant —Factory Act. The failure of an employee to give notice of the unguarded condition of a saw does not, under the factory act, preclude a recovery, since the object of the notice is simply to secure an inspection thereof by the commissioner of labor.</p> <p>Same — Nature ox “Guard” — Requirements ox Factory Act — Instructions. Where an operator was injured by the cutting of his hand on a hand-fed rotary ripsaw, which was not guarded, and there was evidence that a self-feeding apparatus had previously been in use on the machine and would have avoided the danger, it is error to refuse to give an instruction that the self-feeding apparatus, which made a radical change in the operation of the saw, is not such a guard for a hand-fed saw as is contemplated by the factory act requiring saws to he guarded.</p> <p>Trial — Instructions in Writing. The statute requiring instructions to the jury to he in writing, when so requested, is mandatory, and is not complied with by oral instructions taken down by a stenographer employed by the parties.</p> <p>Same. The proviso to laws 1903, p. 120, that injury must be shown to justify a reversal for the refusal of an instruction or ruling, has no application to the requirement that instructions shall he given in writing when so requested.</p>