Boley v. Larson, 36331
| Decision Date | 26 September 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 36331,36331 |
| Citation | 62 Wn.2d 959,385 P.2d 326 |
| Parties | Bill BOLEY, Appellant, v. Milton LARSON and Shirley Larson, husband and wife, Respondents. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Paul B. Fournier, Montesano, John E. Close, Aberdeen, for appellant.
Parker & Parker, Aberdeen, for respondents.
The plaintiff-appellant, Bill Boley, commenced the instant suit for damages arising from injuries he sustained while employed on a potato farm, owned and operated by Milton and Shirley Larson (defendants-respondents). Mr. Boley has appealed from a judgment that sustained the defendants' challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence at the conclusion of the plaintiff's case to the jury.
Mr. Boley, while engaged in the harvesting of potatoes, suffered his injuries when he fell from a truck which was being unloaded by the 'barn crew.' A different crew, the 'field crew,' working a few miles from the barn wherein the potatoes were unloaded and stored, removed the potatoes from the ground and loaded them into waiting trucks by means of a mechanical potato digger.
The trucks used for carrying the potatoes to the storage barn are equipped with specially designed bins. These bins, constructed to facilitate unloading, have sloping sides near the bottom to funnel the potatoes onto a chain conveyor built into the floor of the bin. The upper sides of the truck are perpendicular to the bottom of the bin. The left side of this truck bin is some ten inches lower than the right, to permit the mechanical potato digger in the field to drop the potatoes into the bottom of the bin without unduly bruising them. This lower lift side is equipped with a 'dropboard,' which extends it entire length. The dropboard is hinged so that when it is raised to its upright position the left side of the truck equals the height of the fight.
Digressing from the evidentiary pattern, we again refer to the procedural posture of this case and, in this connection, discuss the legal principles which we think are dispositive of this appeal. In essence, we are concerned with the action of the trial judge, presiding over a jury trial, (a) granting a motion challenging the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff's evidence, and (b) dismissing the lawsuit. We have stated on mumerous occasions (see Miller v. Payless Drug Stores of Washington (1963), 161 Wash.Dec. 649, 379 P.2d 932) that, in ruling upon a motion challenging the legal sufficiency of the evidence, the evidence of the nonmoving party must be considered in the light most favorable to him; that no element of discretion is involved, and that such motions can be granted only when it can be held as a matter of law that there is no evidence or reasonable inference therefrom to sustain a jury verdict for the nonmoving party.
The evidence in this case, evaluated in the light most favorable to the appellant, would support the following factual determinations: The particular truck on which the appellant was injured had a front headboard which had become warped in such a manner to apply pressure to the front end of the dropboard when it was in its raised or upright position. This pressure made it more difficult to press the dropboard into its raised position, and also tended to hold it upright, independent of the securing or locking pins. In the absence of such pressure, it was likely that the dropboard would swing downward, if the pins were not in position.
On the day in question, the truck was loaded in the usual manner under the direction of Milton Larson, who was operating the mechanical potato digger. The dropboard, after having been lowered and raised in the field, reached the barn in an upright position. The arrival of the truck coincided with the lunch hour of the workmen at the barn, and there was some delay in unloading.
In unloading the truck the procedure or common practice was to start the motor, which operated the chain conveyor on the bottom of the bin, to discharge as many potatoes as possible. In the course of this operation, it was necessary for someone to enter the bin from the rear of the truck to push the potatoes down onto the conveyor with his hands and feet. Mr. Boley entered the truck bin to assist in the unloading. While kicking the potatoes down onto the conveyor, he sat on the upright dropboard. It immediately swung down and out under his weight, casting him to the ground. The fall resulted in severe injuries.
The parties are in agreement the the dropboard would not have 'collapsed' (to its down or open position) if the pins had been properly placed so as to lock the dropboard in position....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bordynoski v. Bergner, 47618-7
...Ward, 70 Wash.2d 45, 422 P.2d 12 (1966); Schwab v. Department of Labor & Indus., 69 Wash.2d 111, 417 P.2d 613 (1966); Boley v. Larson, 62 Wash.2d 959, 385 P.2d 326 (1963); Helman v. Sacred Heart Hosp., 62 Wash.2d 136, 381 P.2d 605 (1963). Moreover, a finding of contributory negligence as a ......
-
Niven v. MacDonald
...contributory negligence exists as a matter of law. O'Brien v. City of Seattle, 52 Wash.2d 543, 327 P.2d 433 (1958); Boley v. Larson, 62 Wash.2d 959, 385 P.2d 326 (1963); Allen v. Fish, 64 Wash.2d 665, 393 P.2d 621 From the time respondent commenced his passing to the time of impact, there e......
-
Allen v. Fish
...negligent as a matter of law, and that the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria applies to this case. As we said in Boley v. Larson, 62 Wash.2d 959, 963, 385 P.2d 326 (1964): 'Respondents have argued that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed on the basis that Boley was 'contrib......
-
O'Dell v. Chicago, M., St. P. & P. R. Co.
...a jury verdict for the non-moving party. Schwab v. Department of Labor & Indus., 69 Wash.2d 111, 417 P.2d 613 (1966); Boley v. Larson, 62 Wash.2d 959, 385 P.2d 326 (1963); Helman v. Sacred Heart Hosp., 62 Wash.2d 136, 381 P.2d 605 (1963). In addition, the trial court must apply the rule tha......