North Bend Lumber Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & Puget Sound Railway Co.

Citations

• 76 Wash. 232
• 135 P. 1017
• 1913 Wash. LEXIS 1806

Syllabus

<p>Master and Servant — Injuries to Third Persons — Relation— Servant or Independent Contractor. Parties agreeing to clear a railroad right of way are not independent contractors, where under their contract, in the usual form for railroad construction work, they were obligated to prosecute the work with such means as the company’s representative might require, were subject at all times to his direction, his decision was final upon all matters in dispute, and he could cancel the contract and control the time of the work and the number of employees, leaving the contractors with no independent judgment as to the means or manner of performing the work.</p> <p>Appeal — Review—Harmless Error — Instructions. An erroneous instruction making a railroad company liable for the negligent acts of certain persons as independent contractors, is harmless, where it appears that they were servants of the company and the company was liable for their negligent acts.</p> <p>Appeal — Review—Verdict. A verdict supported by substantive evidence cannot be set aside on appeal merely because against the weight of the evidence.</p> <p>Railroads — Fires—Cause—Evidence—Question eor Jury. In an action for the destruction of timber by a railroad fire, alleged to have spread to the plaintiff’s premises, whether the loss was caused by the railroad fire or by an independent fire in the neighborhood, is a question for the jury, where there was evidence to the effect that the several fires all had a common origin, viz. the fire started on the railroad right of way by the company’s servants.</p> <p>Railroads — Fires—-Negligence—Violation oe Statute — Presumptions. Where a complaint charged a railroad company with setting a fire on its right of way without a permit and in violation of a statute, after the fire warden had warned it not to do so, it is proper to instruct that the setting of such a fire without a permit and in violation of the statute was prima'facie evidence of negligence.</p> <p>Trial — I