Sandquist v. Independent Telephone Co.

Citations

• 38 Wash. 313
• 80 P. 539
• 1905 Wash. LEXIS 1168

Syllabus

<p>MAster and Servant—Negligence—Failing to Instruct— Three Months’ Service in Taking Down Telephone Poles. Where plaintiff. had been employed for three months in taking down telephone poles, was of more than average intelligence, and understood all the details of the work, the master was not guilty of negligence in failing to instruct and warn him.</p> <p>Same—Injury to Servant in Taking Down Telephone Pole— Inadequate Force of Men. Where there was evidence that a telephone pole might have been taken down in safety with less men than were employed, but that such number would have to go about the task in a different manner, it was proper to submit to the jury the question of the negligence of me defendant in taking down the pole in a particular manner with an inadequate force of men.</p> <p>Same—Contributory Negligence—Running Away to Avoid Danger—Error in Judgment. Contributory negligence is a question for the jury where a servant, assisting in taking down a telephone pole, knowing that it was about to fall, on the impulse of the moment ran away to avoid the danger, although he erred in judgment and would not have been injured if he had remained at his post.</p> <p>Same—Evidence oe Warning to Run—Competency on Question of Contributory Negligence. In an action for injuries sustained by a servant in taking down a telephone pole which suddenly fell, it is competent for the plaintiff to prove, on his case in chief, that the foreman warned him to run, in order to rebut an inference of contributory negligence arising from the fact that he would not have been injured if he had remained at his post.</p> <p>Same—Foreman Giving Orders—Fellow Servants. The foreman of a gang of men engaged in taking down a telephone pole is not a fellow servant of the men, if by his orders the plaintiff was led into a place of danger or the place was rendered unsafe, where it appears that he had entire charge of the work and gave orders at every step in the process, which plaintiff was bound t