Jancko v. West Coast Mfg. & Inv. Co.

• Decision Date: 22 September 1905
• Citation: 82 P. 284,40 Wash. 230
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: JANCKO v. WEST COAST MFG. & INV. CO.

82 P. 284

40 Wash. 230

JANCKO v. WEST COAST MFG. & INV. CO.

Supreme Court of Washington

September 22, 1905

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

Action by Peter Jancko against the West Coast Manufacturing &amp Investment Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

G. M Emory, for appellant.

Aust &amp Terhune, for respondent.

DUNBAR, J.

This is an action for personal injuries. It is alleged that the plaintiff, an inexperienced man, entered the employ of the defendant in his shingle and saw mill as an assistant to a knee bolter, and that the foreman of the defendant told the plaintiff that he should take his instructions from the knee bolter whose assistant he was; that on the second day of the plaintiff's employment a certain slab became clogged under the knee-bolter saw, between the saw and the frame in which it ran; that the plaintiff was about to remove the slab by means of a stick, when the knee bolter stopped him and instructed him as to the proper way to remove the obstruction, by telling him that it should be done by inserting his arm in the narrow space between the saw and the frame and removing the slab with his fingers. It was also alleged that the opening through which the slabs fell from the sawn bolt was too narrow, and that the conveyor, intended to carry off the refuse, was also not wide enough; that the dangers specified were not known to the plaintiff, and were not obvious; that by reason of the plaintiff following the instructions of the knee bolter he was injured and lost three of his fingers, the slabs catching the teeth of the saw which was thereby caused to vibrate from side to side. As a result of the trial, judgment was rendered in favor of the respondent for $1,500.

This cause has been before this court before, and is reported in 34 Wash. 556, 76 P. 78. In that case a nonsuit was granted by the lower court, and this court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for trial. It is contended by the appellant that the only ground upon which the case was reversed was that there was sufficient evidence of the vibration of the saw to sustain a verdict, and that therefore that question should have been submitted to the jury, and that, inasmuch as there was no proof of vibration in the last trial, the court erred in denying the challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. But an examination of the opinion of the court in the former case shows that the decision was not so limited, but that it was held that the question of negligence and contributory negligence should have been submitted to the jury. In the course of the opinion it is said: 'It was for the jury and not for the court, to say whether respondent was negligent in failing to give appellant more specific instructions, and to warn him as to the danger from the...