Ramm v. Hewitt-Lea Lumber Co.

Citations

• 49 Wash. 263
• 94 P. 1081
• 1908 Wash. LEXIS 562

Syllabus

<p>Master and Servant — Guarding Machinery — Unguarded Set Screw — Contributory Negligence — Questions for Jury. Whether a set screw might have been advantageously guarded under the factory act, negligence in failing to do so, assumed risks and contribu-, tory negligence, are questions for the jury, where it appears that an employee first attempted to apply oil from in front, reaching around a timber, when the pulley threw dust into his eyes, whereupon he passed to a position back of the timber and was caught on an unprotected set screw on the pulley, there being evidence that his usual work was on the floor below, that he had never been there before, and that the set screw might have been advantageously guarded, and the evidence as to his contributory negligence was conflicting.</p> <p>Same — Contributory Negligence — Unsafe Methods — Instructions. It is proper to refuse a requested instruction that a servant is guilty of contributory negligence if he assumes an unsafe method of performing an act, when there were one or more safe methods that he might have adopted, where the evidence shows that he had no knowledge or means of knowledge of the unsafety of the course pursued; since the instruction is too broad.</p> <p>Same — Oiling Machinery in Motion — Custom. An employee is not guilty of contributory negligence in attempting to oil a shaft without stopping the machinery in a shingle mill where it was not customary and he had been instructed not to do so.</p> <p>Trial — Instructions—Requests. Upon refusal to give an instruction because not requested in proper form, it is not prejudicial error to fail to prepare and give another instruction on the same subject.</p> <p>Same. It is not error to refuse an instruction where the point was covered in the general charge.</p>