Shaw v. Woodland Shingle Co.

Citations

• 61 Wash. 56
• 111 P. 1070
• 1910 Wash. LEXIS 1281

Syllabus

<p>Appeal — Review—-Harmless Error. Error cannot be predicated on the sustaining of an objection to testimony, where all the evidence of the witness was admitted under other questions.</p> <p>Master and Servant — Tools — Guarding Machinery — Factory Act — Practicability—Evidence—Admissibility. Where the question of practicability is in issue, it is not error to allow the defendant to Show by experts that other mills under similar circumstances had found a certain guard for a shingle saw to be impracticable, under Rem. & Bal. Code, § 6587, requiring guards for all machinery which it is practicable to guard.</p> <p>• Same — Instructions. It would seem that an instruction requiring any practicable guard on a shingle saw which would still leave it possible to operate the saw in a way to be “commercially profitable,” is the legal equivalent of Rem. & Bal. Code, § 6587, requiring guards for all machinery which it is practicable to guard.</p> <p>Trial- — Instructions—Preponderance oe Evidence. It is not prejudicial error to define the “fair preponderance” of the evidence to be such as produces conviction in the mind, where the court qualified the same by adding, “not the number of witnesses, but the most credible evidence; that which satisfies the minds, the minds as jurors.”</p>