Johnson v. Great Northern Lumber Co.

• Decision Date: 20 January 1908
• Parties: JOHNSON v. GREAT NORTHERN LUMBER CO.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

93 P. 516

48 Wash. 325

JOHNSON v. GREAT NORTHERN LUMBER CO.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 20, 1908

Appeal from Superior Court, Skagit County; George A. Joiner, Judge.

Action by Gus Johnson against the Great Northern Lumber Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Kerr &amp McCord, for appellant.

FULLERTON J.

The respondent brought this action to recover for personal injuries, received by him while in the employ of the appellant, and which he alleges were caused by the negligent acts of persons for whose acts the appellant is responsible. The undisputed evidence is that the appellant was engaged in the operation of a sawmill, and that the respondent was one of its employés; that the appellant desired to enlarge its mill, and employed one Veratt to excavate some earth and rock that were in the way of the installation of some additional boilers; that Veratt undertook to remove the rock by blasting, and in so doing fired a blast without notice to respondent and while respondent was in the mill adjoining engaged in his usual occupation; that the blast threw great quantities of the broken rock into the air, some of which came down through the roof of the mill and struck the respondent, severely and permanently injuring him. The appellant defended on the ground, among others, that Veratt was an independent contractor, and that the negligence which caused the respondent's injury, if any negligence there was, was Veratt's negligence, for which Veratt alone is responsible, and for which the appellant is not liable. The appellant's superintendent testified that he made the contract for removing the rock with Veratt, and that the contract was to the effect that Veratt should do the work on his own responsibility, being responsible to the appellant only for its results. At the conclusion of the case the appellant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, and moved the court to discharge the jury and enter judgment in favor of the appellant. The challenge and motion were denied and the cause was submitted to the jury under an instruction to the effect that if they found that Veratt was an independent contractor the appellant was not responsible for any injury occurring because of his negligent acts. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the respondent for $3,000, on which judgment was afterwards entered, and this appeal was taken from the judgment so entered.

The appellant contends that there was no contradiction, either directly or indirectly, of the evidence on its part tending to show that Veratt was an independent contractor, and that in consequence the court erred in submitting the question to the determination of the jury, and that it is entitled for...