Lowset v. Seattle Lumber Co.

• Decision Date: 13 April 1905
• Citation: 80 P. 431,38 Wash. 290
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: LOWSET v. SEATTLE LUMBER CO.

80 P. 431

38 Wash. 290

LOWSET v. SEATTLE LUMBER CO.

Supreme Court of Washington

April 13, 1905

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Arthur E. Griffin, Judge.

Action by Martin Lowset against the Seattle Lumber Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Carr &amp Preston, for appellant.

Martin J. Lund and Fulton & Faben, for respondent.

DUNBAR J.

The plaintiff, while working in the mill of the defendant, got his hand caught in the chain and cogwheels and crushed, and the present action is for damages arising therefrom. The complaint alleges negligence on the part of the defendant in not warning him of the danger incident to the employment, and in directing him to perform labor with tools that were not safe implements to work with, the danger being known to the defendant, and unknown to the plaintiff by reason of his inexperience. It is also alleged that the cogwheels were constructed in a defective and dangerous manner, and negligently left uncovered by said defendant.

Many assignments of error are presented by the appellant, but we think that the instructions which were given by the court properly placed before the jury the issues of the case, that the instructions objected to stated the law, and that the instructions which were asked and refused by the court had been either substantially given by the court, or were not warranted by the testimony in the case. Neither are we able to discover that there was any error in the admission or rejection of testimony.

But the second assignment of error, viz., that the court erred in admitting testimony to the jury to the effect that the defendant was indemnified by an insurance company against losses of this kind, must be sustained. After the president and manager of the mill company, N.W. Hamilton, had been examined, both directly and on cross-examination, he was recalled, and the following occurred: 'Q. by Counsel for Plaintiff: Have you any interest in this action at all, Mr Hamilton? A. I am president and manager of the Seattle Lumber Company. Q. You are indemnified, are you not, against loss or damages? Mr. Carr: I object to that. Mr. Fulton: I want to show what interest he has in it. Mr. Carr: I object to the question as irrelevant and immaterial. The Court: Objection overruled; exception allowed. Q. You are indemnified against this accident, are you not? Mr. Carr: I object to that question as irrelevant and immaterial, and not proper cross-examination. The Court: Objection overruled; exception allowed. Q. Answer, please. A. Well, I have what is called a casualty insurance. Q. And the insurance which you carried at that time on your mill covered the accident for which this action was brought, did it not? Mr. Carr: Same objection. The Court: Objection overruled; exception allowed. Q. What is the answer? A. Why, it is supposed to be a limited liability, I believe. Q. It is to pay a certain part? Mr. Carr: The same objection. A. Yes, sir. Q. Five thousand dollars, does it not? Mr. Carr: Same objection. The Court: Overruled exception allowed. A. Yes, sir. Q. What is that? A. Yes, sir. Q. You are interested in all...