Carlson v. Wilkeson Coal & Coke Co.

• Decision Date: 16 June 1898
• Citation: 19 Wash. 473,53 P. 725
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: CARLSON v. WILKESON COAL & COKE CO.

53 P. 725

19 Wash. 473

CARLSON v. WILKESON COAL & COKE CO.

Supreme Court of Washington

June 16, 1898

Appeal from superior court, Pierce county; Thomas Carroll, Judge.

Action by C. A. Carlson against the Wilkeson Coal & Coke Company. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appealed. Affirmed.

Sharpstein & Blattner, for appellant.

Fred H Peterson (E. D. Wilcox, of counsel), for respondent.

REAVIS J.

Appellant is the owner of a coal mine at Wilkeson, Pierce county. The entrance to the mine is through a gangway or tunnel. A 3-foot gauge car track is laid in the gangway. Over this track engines and cars carry the coal out of the mine. At the entrance to the gangway, and at the distance of 450 feet further towards the interior, are constructed doors. The inside door is 6 feet 1/2 inch at the top, 6 feet 5 3/4 inches at the bottom, and 5 feet 7 inches in height, and is 1 1/2 inches thick, braced by two crossbars on the inside. On the outside of the door, strap hinges running out the width of the door were fastened by bolts running through the door and the braces. Both doors were hung to the timbers at the right side of the gangway, and opened towards the entrance of the gangway. The usual speed in the gangway was between 6 and 8 miles an hour; sometimes faster. These doors were opened by an employé stationed at the right side of the gangway, and to open the doors he had to cross the track. Two locomotives were operated in the gangway, and an engineer and switchman or brakeman were employed on each of the engines. Respondent was a switchman on one of the engines. Frank Cope, a boy aged 14 1/2 years, was stationed at the right of the interior door. His duty was to open the door when the engine came along the gangway, and to shut it after it passed through. Respondent was with his engine, and as it, with cars attached, was going along the gangway at a speed of from 7 to 12 miles an hour, the doors being unopened at the usual signal, the engine crashed through them; and respondent was injured, having his leg broken. In his complaint he alleges negligence of appellant in the employment of an incompetent person to attend the opening of the doors. The gangway was a dark passage, and the attendant at the doors could only stop trains by waving his lantern. At the conclusion of the trial appellant moved the court to take the case from the consideration of the jury, and enter judgment dismissing the action, on the ground that there was no evidence that plaintiff's injury was sustained as the result of any negligence on the part of the defendant, and that plaintiff's injury resulted from his own negligence. The motion was overruled. The jury returned a verdict for $750 damages in favor of respondent.

The only error assigned and argued here is the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict. It appears from the plaintiff's testimony that the doors across the interior of the gangway had to be opened...