Eidner v. Three Lakes Lumber Co.

• Decision Date: 15 January 1907
• Citation: 45 Wash. 323,88 P. 326
• Parties: EIDNER v. THREE LAKES LUMBER CO.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

88 P. 326

45 Wash. 323

EIDNER v. THREE LAKES LUMBER CO.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 15, 1907

Appeal from Superior Court, Snohomish County; W. W. Black, Judge.

Action by Morris Eidner against the Three Lakes Lumber Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Corley & Horan, for appellant.

John W Miller and McMurchie & Locke, for respondent.

MOUNT C.J.

The plaintiff in this case recovered a judgment for $5,348, for personal injuries. Defendant appeals.

There is no dispute of the facts. The only question presented is whether, under the facts, the plaintiff made a case sufficient to go to the jury. The facts are: The appellant owned and operated a sawmill in Snohomish county. The saw carriage used in the mill was the kind commonly known as a 'shotgun' or 'steamfeed' carriage. It was moved back and forth upon a track past the saw by means of steam power applied directly to the piston attached to the carriage. The steam was applied by means of a lever operated by the head sawyer. This lever was equipped with a device which, when used, held the lever when not in use, so as to prevent the admission of steam into the piston. On the 19th day of September, 1905, the respondent was engaged in his duties as setter upon the carriage. In order to perform his duties it was necessary for him at all times to stand upon the carriage. On that day while respondent was engaged in his duties as setter and while he was standing in his position upon the carriage waiting for a log and observing the movements of the log as others of the crew were about to place the same upon his carriage, the head sawyer left his post at the lever and omitted to lock said lever with the safety device furnished for that purpose, and failed to notify respondent that the lever was insecure. After the head sawyer had left his post, the lever, on account of not being secured, moved forward by its own weight and permitted steam to enter the piston, thereby causing the carriage to start suddenly and move forward very rapidly, so that the respondent was thrown down upon the head block and immediately thereafter the carriage struck the bumper at the end of the track with great force and injured the respondent very severely. The head sawyer had full control of the machinery in connection with the saw and saw carriage, and also had full control of the saw crew, consisting of the respondent and three other men, who were under his orders and bound to obey his commands. These men were subect to dismissal upon the head sawyer's recommendation. They received orders from him and from no one else. The negligence alleged in the complaint is, in substance, that the head sawyer carelessly left his post of duty and left the lever unsecured, which controlled the motion of the saw carriage and left the respondent in a dangerous position, without warning him thereof.

Counsel for appellant contends that the appellant had done its full duty when it furnished a reasonably safe place for respondent to work, reasonably safe tools and machinery, and reasonably careful employés. Such is no doubt the rule. But the duty of the master does not end there. He must also maintain the safety of the place. It cannot be said that the master may permit the place to become unsafe by the use of the implements furnished or by neglect to perform a duty devolving upon him, and then avoid liability because the implements furnished were originally reasonably safe. It is conceded apparently that the implements furnished by the master in this case were reasonably safe at...