Howland v. Standard Mill. & Logging Co.

• Citation: 50 Wash. 34,96 P. 686
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Decision Date: 11 July 1908
• Parties: HOWLAND v. STANDARD MILLING & LOGGING CO.

96 P. 686

50 Wash. 34

HOWLAND v. STANDARD MILLING & LOGGING CO.

Supreme Court of Washington

July 11, 1908

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; A. W. Frater, Judge.

Action by Chris Howland against the Standard Milling & Logging Company, for personal injuries. Judgment was directed for defendant. From an order granting a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Roberts & Hulbert, for appellant.

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

FULLERTON J.

The respondent was injured while working in the logging camp of the appellant, and brought this action to recover therefor alleging that his injuries were caused by the negligence of the appellant. At the trial, which was being had before a jury, the court sustained a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, discharged the jury, and directed judgment to be entered, in favor of the appellant, to the effect that the respondent take nothing by his action. The respondent thereupon moved for a new trial, which motion the court after taking the same under advisement, granted, reinstating the case for another trial by jury. From the order granting the new trial this appeal is taken.

In its logging operations the appellant was using two donkey engines, one, the yard donkey, to drag the logs from the place in the woods where they were felled to the main logging road or skidway, and the other, the road donkey, to drag them from the latter place to the milling plant of the appellant, where they were cut into lumber. These donkeys were stationary, and hauled the logs by means of steel cables long enough to extend from the engines to the location of the logs. The cable on the road engine was carried back by means of a second steel cable, called a 'haul-back line,' smaller in size than the logging cable, which was passed through a series of pulleys, fastened at intervals along the side of the logging road, to a point somewhat beyond the logs desired to be hauled, where it passed through a pulley called a 'tail block,' and was then fastened to the end of the logging cable. As the logging cable was drawn in toward the road donkey dragging its load of logs, the haul-back line was paid out, and was in turn hauled in when it was desired to haul the heavy cable back to the woods. It was the respondent's duty to hitch the logs to the heavy cable, follow them to the dumping place, release them from the cable, and then follow the cable back for another load of logs. The chains and hooks used in hitching the logs to the cable were carried back to the woods by means of a sled fastened to the cable, and drawn back to the woods by the haul-back line. It was the respondent's custom to ride back on this sled. Just prior to the time of the accident a colaborer, working with the yard donkey, acting under the direction of the appellant's foreman, without notice to the respondent, and without his knowledge, removed one of the pulleys near the tail block, letting the haul-back line drop on the ground. In dropping, the line caught on a projecting root, which held it in place while the main road line was being hauled back. It held in that position until the sled on which the respondent was riding reached a point near it, when it gave way, allowing the line to swing against the respondent with such force as to break one of his legs at the ankle. It is this injury for which he sues.

The appellant contends (1) that the evidence fails to show any negligence on the part of the appellant; (2) that if there was negligence of any person, it was the negligence of a fellow servant of the respondent; (3) that the danger was open and apparent and the...