Graaf v. Vulcan Iron Works

• Citation: 109 P. 1016,59 Wash. 325
• Parties: GRAAF v. VULCAN IRON WORKS.
• Decision Date: 13 July 1910
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

109 P. 1016

59 Wash. 325

GRAAF v. VULCAN IRON WORKS.

Supreme Court of Washington

July 13, 1910

Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; R. B. Albertson Judge.

Action by G. W. Graaf against the Vulcan Iron Works. From a judgment of dismissal entered after a verdict in favor of plaintiff he appeals. Reversed and judgment on the verdict directed.

Blaine, Tucker & Hyland and Robert C. Saunders for appellant.

Farrell Kane & Stratton, for respondent.

GOSE J.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained while employed by the defendant. There was a verdict in his favor. Thereafter, upon the motion of the defendant, a judgment of dismissal was entered. The plaintiff has appealed.

The case was submitted to the jury upon the evidence introduced by the appellant; the respondent offering no testimony. The facts are few and simple. The record discloses that the appellant, at the time of the injury, had been employed by the respondent in its machine works as a machinist for 12 years; that his main work was to operate a planer, by means of which heavy iron was turned and shaped for final assembly into machinery of different kinds; that when the planer work was finished, the iron was loaded upon a truck by means of a traveling crane, and then moved by the machinist to another part of the shop; that there were five or six of these trucks in use; that they were 10 or 12 feet in length, about 20 inches in height, and were designed to, and did, carry heavy loads of material; that the frame of the trucks was wood, set upon round iron axles, resting upon two iron wheels held in place by a split pin, the axle revolving with the wheel; that at the time of the accident, the appellant, with an assistant, was wheeling one of the trucks, loaded with a cast iron column 16 feet in length and weighing about 1,600 pounds; that the appellant was at one end of the casting 'steering and shoving'; that the right wheel dropped off, causing the column to strike the wall, severing the appellant's thumb. The evidence further shows that the same or similar trucks had been in use in the respondent's shops for 12 years or more; that the appellant used them as occasion required; that at times he would use one several times a day, and at other times a week would elapse without his using them; that in using them he selected the one that was most convenient, and that they were used indiscriminately by the employés of the shop for wheeling material about the shop, or for whatever purpose 'the help, employés, or foreman, or others wanted to use them for'; that the appellant had not been instructed to inspect the trucks, or see that they were kept in repair; that he did not inspect them; that he did not know whether the pin came out or what caused the wheel to come off, and that he did not know that the axle revolved, until after he had received the injury.

We think the record presents a state of facts which unexplained, warranted the jury in inferring the negligence of the respondent. There was no duty of inspection cast upon the appellant, either expressly or by implication; nor was the truck in his exclusive use or control. Its use was a mere incident to his main employment as a machinist. It is fundamental that it is the duty of the master to furnish the servant reasonably safe instrumentalities with which to carry on his work, and to maintain them in a reasonably safe condition. Common observation and experience teach that sound appliances do not break when employed in a proper manner and in the use for which they were designed. If they break when so used, it is a circumstance from which it may be inferred either that it was defective in the beginning, or had become so by use. The evidence warrants the conclusion that the truck was not overloaded, and that it was being used in the ordinary way for the work for which the master had...