McKean v. Chappell

Citation56 Wash. 690,106 P. 184
PartiesMcKEAN v. CHAPPELL et al.
Decision Date17 January 1910
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Washington

Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, Snohomish County; W. W. Black Judge.

Action by Charles McKean against Frank Chappell and others copartners doing business as Chappell Lumber Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Brownell & Coleman, for appellants.

Willett & Willett and A. R. Moore, for respondent.

FULLERTON J.

This is an appeal from a judgment for personal injuries. The appellants own a lumber mill, and employed the respondent to operate the rigging used for hauling the logs from the millpond up to the log deck, preparatory to cutting them into lumber. The logs were hauled up a tramway or chute, which extended from the log deck down into the water of the millpond, by means of a steel cable attached to a drum; the latter being a contrivance in the shape of a large spool fastened between frames placed at the farther end of the log deck. The drum was connected with the power of the mill, by which it could be made to revolve, and by revolving it wound up the cable, and thus would draw into the mill logs to which the end of the cable had been fastened. The drum had two connections with the main shaft of the mill each of which was operated by a lever, and both of which had to be connected in order to cause the drum to revolve; the first known as the friction gear, and the other as the clutch. The day before the accident happened by which the respondent was injured the cable pulled loose from its fastening on the drum, and was fixed by the appellant, Peter Chappell. In fixing it some of the strands of wire of which the cable was composed were broken, and the ends were left sticking out. The respondent called the attention of Chappell to these ends, telling him that he did not feel like working around the cable in its then condition, and was told by Chappell that he had then no time to fix it, but would cut off the objectionable part just as soon as he could get around to it. On the next day the respondent attached the cable to a log, and proceeded to start the hauling machinery in motion. He first put on the friction gear, and then stepped over to close the clutch. The lever to the clutch was laid parallel with the mill floor, and some few inches above it, and the clutch was thrown on and off by moving the lever horizontally. After stooping and moving the lever putting the clutch in place, he started to rise, when his feet slipped on some wet bark which had dropped from the logs to the mill floor, when, in his endeavor to protect himself from falling, he threw out his hand, striking the cable at a place where the end of a broken wire protruded. The end of the wire pierced his glove, and held him fast to the cable, so that he was hauled to the drum and wound around it under the cable. He was carried four times around the drum, breaking one arm and both legs, one of them in two places. For these injuries he sued in this action.

The appellants assign many errors, a number of which we think are concluded against them by the verdict of the jury. For example, it is contended that the respondent was guilty of contributory negligence, in that he selected the more dangerous way by which to start the drum revolving in that he engaged the friction gear first when he...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Antler v. Cox
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • June 12, 1915
    ... ... (McDonald v. Toledo etc. Ry. Co., 74 ... F. 104, 20 C. C. A. 322; Walrod v. Webster Co., 110 ... Iowa 349, 81 N.W. 598, 47 L. R. A. 480; McKean v ... Chappell, 56 Wash. 690, 106 P. 184; Wible v ... Burlington etc. Ry. Co., 109 Iowa 557, 80 N.W. 679; ... Olson v. Gill Home Inv. Co., 58 ... ...
  • Hines v. Sweeney
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • October 3, 1921
    ... ... Co., 148 A.D. 500, 132 N.Y.S. 1038; Bales v ... McConnell, 27 Okla. 407, 112 P. 978; Goe v. R ... Co., 30 Wash. 654, 71 P. 182; McKean v ... Chappell, 56 Wash. 690, 106 P. 184; Fegley v. Rubber ... Co., 231 Pa. 446, 80 A. 870. Many others might be cited ... In the first three ... ...
  • Parker v. Washington Tug & Barge Co.
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • May 27, 1915
    ... ... 346, 81 P. 849; ... McKenzie v. North Coast Colliery Co., 55 Wash. 495, ... 104 P. 801, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1244; McKean v ... Chappell, 56 Wash. 690, 106 P. 184; Sexsmith v ... Brown, 61 Wash. 164, 112 P. 337; Critler v. Jacobson ... & Lindstrom, 66 ... ...
  • Rommen v. Empire Furniture Mfg. Co.
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • November 25, 1911
    ... ... Independent Mill Co., 54 ... Wash. 212, 103 P. 45; Hale v. Crown, etc., Co., 56 ... Wash. 236, 105 P. 480; McKean v. Chappell, 56 Wash ... 690, 106 P. 184; Berger v. Metropolitan, etc., Co., ... 61 Wash. 35, 111 P. 872. In the Bush Case it was held ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT