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

• Decision Date: 04 April 1904
• Citation: 76 P. 78,34 Wash. 556
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: JANCKO v. WEST COAST MFG. & INV. CO.

76 P. 78

34 Wash. 556

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

Supreme Court of Washington

April 4, 1904

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; W. R. Bell, Judge.

Action by Peter Jancko against the West Coast Manufacturing &amp Investment Company. From a judgment dismissing the action plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Geo. F. Aust, for appellant.

Piles Donworth & Howe, for respondent.

HADLEY J.

This is an action to recover for personal injuries received in a shingle mill. At the trial the court granted a challenge to the evidence interposed by the defendant at the close of the plaintiff's testimony. The cause was withdrawn from the jury, motion for new trial was denied, and judgment was entered dismissing the action. The plaintiff has appealed.

There was evidence before the jury to the following effect: That appellant went to respondent's mill early in the morning and asked the foreman for work, but the latter asked him if he had ever before worked in a shingle mill, to which he answered that he had not; that the foreman then went with appellant to the knee bolter, showed him how to put blocks in the conveyor, and then went away; that, as the foreman was leaving, appellant called to him as follows 'I don't know what kind of job I got. I don't know what kind of job I get here;' that the foreman replied as follows: 'That fellow show you,' and at the same time pointed to the operator of the knee bolter; that the foreman gave him no other instructions, and he worked assisting the operator of the knee bolter during that day, and on the following day the latter called his attention to the fact that a slab, in falling down beside the saw to the conveyor, had become lodged in the upper part of the conveyor, and immediately beneath the saw; that the operator told appellant to take the slab out, and that he was about to attempt to do so by using a stick to move it away from the saw, when the operator said to him, 'Hold on,' and came and took the slab out, at the same time saying, 'I show you the first and last time;' that in removing the slab the operator put his hand and arm down beside the running saw, through the opening in the frame of the bolter, there being a space of 5 or 6 inches between the saw and the frame; that appellant saw no other lodged slab at that time, but later, the same day, he saw several similarly lodged, and then put his hand down through the opening beside the saw and attempted to remove the slabs as he had seen the operator do; that as he lifted the slabs the saw caught them, and was thereby caused to vibrate toward his hand and strike it, cutting off three fingers; that the place was dark and the day cloudy; that an electric lamp hung above the saw, but was not lighted; that the slabs were 16 inches in length, and the opening into the conveyor below the saw was 20 inches wide. A witness introduced as an expert testified that, in order to be safe, the opening into the conveyor should have been not less than 36 inches wide. He also testified that a saw of the size of this one--54 inches--will, when struck by some obstruction at the bottom, vibrate from side to side from 3 to 4 inches. Other expert witnesses testified similarly as to the vibration of the saw, and one other stated that there is nothing in the rotary motion to indicate that the saw will vibrate.

Respondent contends that no negligence on its part was shown, that appellant's injury...