Gaudie v. Northern Lumber Co.

• Decision Date: 05 January 1904
• Citation: 34 Wash. 34,74 P. 1009
• Parties: GAUDIE v. NORTHERN LUMBER CO.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

74 P. 1009

34 Wash. 34

GAUDIE v. NORTHERN LUMBER CO.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 5, 1904

Appeal from Superior Court, Snohomish County; John C. Denney, Judge.

Action by G. L. Gaudie against the Northern Lumber Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Root, Palmer & Brown, for appellant.

Robert A. Hulbert, for respondent.

HADLEY J.

This is an action for damages for injuries received by respondent while assisting to move a car of lumber in the drying kiln of appellant. Respondent's regular work was in the lumber yard, but he was occasionally called, together with others, to assist in moving cars in the kiln. The cars were moved by men pulling and pushing them. The number of men called to move these cars varied, sometimes running as high as 10 or 12. There were two tracks in this apartment of the dry kiln, and upon each of these stood kiln cars loaded with lumber. These tracks ran in a parallel direction, and there was sufficient space between the lumber of the cars on the respective tracks for one to pass safely if no protruding obstruction interfered with the passage. One end of the kiln was entirely closed, while at the other end was an open space about 19 feet wide and 9 or 10 feet in height. There were no windows, and the only light entering the kiln came through this doorway. The cars upon one track, however, filled the kiln up to the open door at the time of the accident, the lumber being piled upon the car standing at the door about 9 feet in height, leaving about 1 foot above through which light could enter. Upon the other track no car stood at the door, but the first one was some distance back, thus leaving the entire space across that track, about one-half the width of that apartment of the kiln, open for the admission of light. There was no solid floor of the kiln, and when pushing or pulling a car the men were required to watch where they stepped in order to avoid stepping upon the heated pipes or through holes leading into the basement below. The temperature of the air in the kiln was usually very high, and the men were required to move the cars quickly in order to get out to cooler air where they could breathe freely. At the time the accident happened to respondent, he was called in from the lumber yard to assist in moving the car which stood back from the door as above described. He passed in between that car and one on the adjoining track and stationing himself alongside the car he began pushing. As the car proceeded, some protruding cross-pieces upon which the lumber was piled caught respondent in such a manner that he was wedged between them. The movement of the car was stopped by the obstruction, and respondent alleges that he was seriously and permanently injured. It is alleged that the lumber was piled upon the cars under the direction of appellant's foreman in a negligent and dangerous manner in that the cross-pieces projected into the space between the cars; that the kiln was dark, and very hot, and that respondent and the other men were required to work very rapidly in order to remove the car before they would become exhanusted from the heat. Appellant, in its answer, pleads assumption of the risk and contributory negligence on the part of respondent. The cause was tried before a jury, and a verdict was returned against appellant in the sum of $5,000.

Appellant's motion for new trial was denied. Judgment was entered for the amount of the verdict, and this appeal is from the judgment.

It is first assigned that the court erred in denying appellant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence at the close of respondent's case, and again after all the evidence was introduced. A careful reading of all the evidence satisfies us that the court did not err in denying the challenge. It was for the jury to say whether the conditions detailed substantially as above constituted negligence on the part of appellant, and the question of contributory negligence was also for the jury, since the evidence was certainly not such as could lead to but the one conclusion in the minds of reasonable men that respondent was guilty of contributory negligence. It is urged that respondent could easily have seen the danger from the cross-sticks, and that he should not have stopped between the cars to push. There was evidence to the effect, however, that the men were called to come quickly from the yard to the kiln, and that the work had to be done rapidly because of the excessive heat; that, upon coming hurriedly from the outside light, it was difficult to see within the kiln until one had been inside for some time; that, even with the half end open space hereinbefore described, which in practical effect admitted all the light which entered the kiln, it was difficult to see when one passed between and behind the cars that when pushing or pulling the men necessarily bent forward, and that they were required to look carefully where they stepped, in order to avoid stepping upon the heated pipes, or through open spaces leading to the basement. There was evidence that at least 8 or 10 men were engaged in moving this car, some of whom were pushing from behind and others pulling in front; that men at the corners in front often obstructed the passage of light into the space between the cars; that about four men could push or pull to advantage from either end of the car; that another man was also pushing from the side at the time respondent was hurt; that it was not an uncommon occurrence for men to push from the side, and that it was often necessary to do so when 10 or 12 men were engaged in moving a car. It is true it was testified that it was usual to warn the men to look out for the sticks, and that respondent had assisted before, and had heard such warning. It was also testified that it had theretofore been...