Newcomb v. Puget Sound & Queen City Boiler Works

• Decision Date: 11 August 1909
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: NEWCOMB v. PUGET SOUND & QUEEN CITY BOILER WORKS.

103 P. 456

54 Wash. 419

NEWCOMB v. PUGET SOUND & QUEEN CITY BOILER WORKS.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

August 11, 1909

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

Action by Ernest Newcomb against the Puget Sound & Queen City Boiler Works. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Richard S. Eskridge, for appellant.

Kerr &amp McCord and L. V. Newcomb, for respondent.

CROW J.

The appellant owns and operates in the city of Seattle a boiler factory equipped with machinery and other appliances. About twelve feet above the floor, running north and south, and about six feet from the west wall, is a shaft carrying pulleys, over which belts pass to machinery below. Upon the particular pulley involved in this action, which is about six feet from the south end of the shaft, are two three-inch belts connecting with a roller machine on the floor below. When not used, the belts are at times removed from the pulley and suspended by ropes from rafters above; one belt hanging north and the other south of the pulley, and the shaft passing through them. About four feet north of the pulley, a pair of two by four wooden joists, located at right angles with the shaft, form a support for one of the journal boxes. A few inches further north is a shaft coupling consisting of two flanges secured by bolts exposed on either side. Parallel to and about 18 inches east from the shaft a 4 by 12 inch plank extends north and south. Between the two joists which support the journal boxes and shaft, a diagonal brace extends from the west wall to the rafters above. The plank parallel to the shaft is reached by a ladder at the south end of the building. The respondent was employed by appellant as a helper to one Harry Souder, a boiler maker. Respondent testified: That Souder was about to repair one of the belts above mentioned, being the one north of the pulley; that he ordered respondent up on the plank near the shaft, to untie and place the belt on the pulley so that Souder could measure the length of a splice he was about to make; that the shaft and machinery were then motionless; that Souder promised they should so remain while respondent was on the plank; that respondent, relying on such promise, went on the plank; that, while he was engaged in placing the belt on the pulley, the machinery was started; that frayed edges of the belt caught on the shaft and pulled him forward; that the plank had no railing or other support; that to recover his equilibrium he reached for the brace to the north; that failing to catch it, he fell upon the shaft and coupling that the bolts of the latter caught his clothing; and that he was drawn around the rapidly revolving shaft and injured. Many of these statements were denied by witnesses for the appellant. The evidence shows that the respondent was required to obey orders of Souder, the boiler maker, although appellant claims Souder had no authority to send respondent near the plank, shaft, or pulley. The evidence further shows that the shaft, coupling, and bolts were unguarded, and that there was no rail or other support along the plank, by which a workman could steady or protect himself. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying its motions for judgment at the close of the evidence, for a new trial, and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. No other assignments are presented.

The only question therefore is whether the evidence was sufficient to warrant the submission of the case to the jury and sustain the verdict. In determining this question we must regard...