Anderson v. Columbia Imp. Co. Et Al

• Decision Date: 20 December 1905
• Citation: 41 Wash. 83,82 P. 1037
• Parties: ANDERSON v. COLUMBIA IMP. CO. et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

82 P. 1037

41 Wash. 83

ANDERSON v. COLUMBIA IMP. CO. et al.

Supreme Court of Washington

December 20, 1905

Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County; Thad Huston, Judge.

Action by Sam Anderson against the Columbia Improvement Company and another. From a judgmet for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Govnor Teats, for appellant.

Harvey L. Johnson and F. S. Blattner, for respondents.

MOUNT C.J.

Action for personal injuries. At the trial of the case, when the plaintiff had introduced all his evidence, the lower court directed a verdict on motion of the defendants. Plaintiff appeals.

The facts are substantially as follows: During the summer of 1903 the respondents were constructing an electric power and light transmission line in Pierce county. About the 1st of July, appellant was employed as a common laborer in clering the right of way of logs, brush, and timber along respondents' spondents' line. Appellant came to this country from Norway in June of 1903. At the time he was employed by respondents, he was unable to speak the English language. A countryman who was a friend and engaged in the same employment with appellant, obtained work for appellant, and told him what he was to do. After the appellant had been employed for aboiut a month rolling logs, piling brush digging holes for poles, and assisting to set the poles, he was sent with a fellow laborer to cut brush and small trees upon the right of way. He had been engaged at this work for about a week, when he and his associate cut down a fir tree about one foot in diameter at the base and about 130 feet tall. This tree was dead and contained no limbs. When it was cut off at the base, it fell against another tree standing near by, and a limb was broken, which fell upon appellant, severely injuring him arm. No instructions had been given appellant as to the danger connected with such work. The complaint alleged that the work was dangerous, and that respondents were negligent in not informing appellant thereof. The answer pleaded contributory negligence and assumption of risk. Appellant testified that at the time he was injured he was looking at the bottom of the tree which was falling, and not at the top, and for that reason did not see the limb which struck him.

Appellant invokes the rule, laid down in numerous authorities, to the effect that 'the master is prima facie bound to instruct a servant as to all risks which are abnomal or extraordinary and at the same time of such a kind that the servant cannot be held chargeable with an adequate comprehension of their nature and extent, or of the proper means by...