Cook v. Chehalis River Lumber Co.

• Decision Date: 06 March 1908
• Citation: 48 Wash. 619,94 P. 189
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: COOK v. CHEHALIS RIVER LUMBER CO.

94 P. 189

48 Wash. 619

COOK v. CHEHALIS RIVER LUMBER CO.

Supreme Court of Washington

March 6, 1908

Appeal from Superior Court, Lewis County; A. E. Rice, Judge.

Action by A. L. Cook against the Chehalis River Lumber Company for personal injuries. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

George Dysart and E. R. York, for appellant.

Eugene Carr and Robert M. Davis, for respondent.

FULLERTON J.

The respondent recovered in this action for injuries received by him while in the employment of the appellant engaged in the construction of a logging railroad. The evidence relating to the manner in which the injury occurred is contradictory but, since the jury found in favor of the respondent, we must accept as true the version most favorable to his contention. In brief, that version is as follows: At the time of the injury the appellant was constructing a trestle across a gulch. The trestle consisted of piles driven in the ground by a steam pile driver in bents of four piles each; the bents being 16 feet apart. After a bent was driven, timbers were nailed on the several piles composing it, connecting it with the last preceding bent. These timbers were attached to the piles probably 2 1/2 feet or 3 feet below the top level, and extended to the front of the last bent some four or five feet. Heavy planks were then laid across the timbers both behind and in front of the bent, making a platform on which the workmen stood while sawing off the tops of the piles to bring them to the proper level, and while fitting the crosspiece thereon called the 'cap.' This cap was a piece of timber 12 by 12 inches in size and 16 feet in length. It was fastened to the tops of the piles by pins, and furnished the rests for the stringers on which the ties for the railway were laid. The piles and timbers for the caps were brought from a point on the opposite side of the gulch from that on which the work was proceeding to the working place by means of the pile driver line. Just prior to the time the respondent was injured a bent had been driven and the timbers fastened thereto and the planks regularly placed. A timber for a cap was then dragged by means of the pile driver line from the opposite side of the gulch to the foot of the bent. This timber was too long for use as a cap and the respondent and his fellow workman proceeded to saw it off with a crosscut saw. The saw pinched after the lumber was partially cut through, and, to relieve this, one Hanson, who was the appellant's foreman directing the work from the top of the bent, ordered the pile driver line to be fastened near the middle of the cap; the purpose being to partially raise the timber by a strain on the line, thus removing the pressure which caused the saw to pinch. When the cap timber had been dragged from the other side of the gulch, the line was on top of the planking which had been placed on the outside of the last bent, but, while the respondent and his co-worker were sawing, it had been taken up by the foreman and let down between the bent and this planking. On being fastened to the cap timber at the point directed, it was some 8 or 10 feet outward from the bent at the foot, and thus outward from a perpendicular to the upper fastening of the line. After the fastening had been made the foreman ordered the engineer in charge of the pile driver to tighten up on the line. This caused the line to straighten, which, in turn caused it to press outwardly on the loose plank placed on the outside of the bent. The result was that the planks were pushed off the projecting timbers, one of which fell and struck some object which broke it into two pieces, one of which pieces struck the respondent, causing the injuries from which he recovered in this action. The respondent did not discover the position of the line prior to the time the order to tighten up on it was given, nor was sufficient warning given him after the planks started to fall to enable him to get into a place of safety. There was uncontradicted evidence tending to show that the work in which the respondent was engaged at the time of the injury was work which he was employed to do; that the machinery and appliances used in and about the work were the usual and ordinary appliances used in similar work, and were appliances suitable for the purposes for which they were used; that the general manner in which they were used was the usual and customary manner of using such appliances; and that the ordinary dangers of the work were open and apparent to any one. There was testimony, also, to the effect that in hoisting a cap from the ground to the top of the bent the ordinary method was to put the rope between the bent and...