McLeod v. Chicago, Milwaukee & Puget Sound Railway Co.

Citations

• 65 Wash. 62
• 117 P. 749
• 1911 Wash. LEXIS 898

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Pleading—Complaint. A complaint alleging that an act was negligently done is sufficient, as against a general demurrer, without setting out in detail the specific acts constituting the negligence.</p> <p>Master and Servant — Safe Place — Pleading — Complaint— Knowledge of Defect. In pleading a negligent act by the master rendering a place unsafe, it is not necessary to plead knowledge by the master and want of knowledge of the servant, where the negligence consisted of an act of the master in the operation of the work, rendering the place instantly unsafe; since the master’s knowledge is inferred, and the servant’s want of knowledge is a matter of defense that need not be negatived in the complaint.</p> <p>Master and Servant — Safe Place — Instructions—Master as Insurer. An instruction that a master owes not only the duty to provide a reasonably safe place to work,-but also to observe such care as not to expose servants to dangers which may be guarded against by reasonable care, is not objectionable as making the master an insurer.</p> <p>Master and Servant — Safe Place — Changing Conditions. The master’s duty to use reasonable care to furnish a safe place to work applies to a certain extent to the taking down of false work, and if the place is made unnecessarily dangerous by the negligence of the master, he is liable.</p> <p>Master and Servant — Fellow Servants — Vice Principal — Superintendence — Failure to Warn. A boss or foreman, whose principal duties were those of direction in command of a crew of men removing the false work from a bridge, is a vice principal, with reference to his own act or his direct order whereby a plank was negligently thrown down without warning upon one of the crew engaged below; and it is immaterial whether he caused the plank to fall by his own act, or merely directed the removal of the support that held it.</p> <p>Master and Servant — Negligence of Vice Principal — Failure to Warn — Evidence—Sufficiency. It is neglige