Goddard v. Interstate Telephone Co., Ltd.

• Decision Date: 08 January 1910
• Citation: 106 P. 188,56 Wash. 536
• Parties: GOODARD v. INTERSTATE TELEPHONE CO., Limited.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

106 P. 188

56 Wash. 536

GOODARD v. INTERSTATE TELEPHONE CO., Limited.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 8, 1910

Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; Wm. A. Huneke Judge.

Action by C. A. Goddard against the Interstate Telephone Company Limited. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed, with instructions to dismiss.

Danson & Williams, for appellant.

Robertson Miller & Rosenhaupt, for respondent.

DUNBAR J.

Respondent was a lineman and a 'trouble' man for appellant company. He fell from a telephone pole, in Sand Point, Idaho on the morning of December 27, 1907. He claims that the cause of his fall was a bent step on the pole. Poles are provided with heavy iron steps on either side, running to the top, on which men climb and descend. These iron steps have an upright prong at the end, making an effectual guard to prevent the feet slipping off. The step in question is an exhibit in the case here, and shows that it was slightly bent so that one climbing up the pole with a broad shoe might slip off by reason of the prong at the end not being at a right angle with the pole. There was some claim that the pin or step turned in the pole; but an examination of the step renders that claim unwarrantable, for the reason that, if it was bent to the extent claimed by the respondent, it would have been impossible for it to have turned in the wood, the bend being mostly inside of the wood and creating a shoulder which would come against the wood of the pole and prevent it from turning. There is also considerable testimony as to the manner in which the step was driven into the pole, it being claimed that the proper way was to bore the wood first and then drive the step in, and that an attempt to drive it in without first boring was probably the cause of the bend in the step. But with the view we take of the duty of the respondent in the premises, this is not material. The accident occurred between 9 and 10 o'clock in the morning of the 27th day of December, 1907, which the respondent says was a clear day. The respondent at the time of the accident was about 31 years of age, had been engaged in this line of work for about 10 years, and had been in the employ of the appellant for about 5 months previous to the accident. About 3 weeks of this time he was employed in the capacity of assistant foreman, and his duties generally consisted of lineman's work, stringing wires, and putting in cables. He also had had charge of the operating department out upon the line. The duty of the trouble man was to repair all kinds of trouble--anything he might find, and to make repairs and put in order anything that should be found wrong on the line. Respondent had worked as trouble man a little over three weeks immediately preceding this accident. These pins or iron steps are placed in the sides of the poles to that the steps on each side are about 3 feet apart, and alternated on each side so as to make an 18-inch stride. The step from which respondent fell was the topmost one on the right-hand side of the pole. He had ascended the pole for the purpose of repairing some wires. He claims that he did not notice the step when he went up, and did not know that it was bent or twisted in any way. Upon trial of the cause, he obtained a judgment for $1,500, from which judgment this appeal is taken.

The doctrine that it is the duty of the master to furnish the servant with a reasonably safe place in which to work, with the correlative doctrine that it is the duty of the servant to exercise reasonable care in the performance of the work to avoid injury to himself, are so well established by the decisions of this and other courts that it is not necessary...