Robinson v. Hill
| Decision Date | 26 November 1910 |
| Parties | ROBINSON v. HILL. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County; John A Shackleford, Judge.
Action by C. S. Robinson against Clarence E. Hill, doing business as the Milton Shingle Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Robert M. Davis and Fred W. Llewellyn, for appellant.
Govnor Teats, Hugo Metzler, and Leo Teats, for respondent.
Respondent brought this action to recover damages for injuries sustained while employed in a shingle mill at Edgewood. The complaint alleged that the appellant was the owner of the mill and the master of respondent. The answer denied that appellant was the master of respondent, and alleged that, as owner of the mill, he had entered into a verbal contract with one J. R. Pineo, whereby Pineo leased the mill, employed and discharged all help, kept the machinery in repair, paid all bills for labor and materials, manufactured all shingles at the mill, and loaded them on cars for shipment, for the sum of 60 cents per thousand; the appellant furnishing the bolts. Other defenses were pleaded, but they are not involved in the question before us. Respondent denied that Pineo was an independent contractor, and upon these issues the case went to the jury, resulting in verdict and judgment for respondent, from which this appeal is taken.
The main errors relied upon for a reversal are in the admission of testimony. It appears that respondent was injured in the same mill the spring before he received his present injury and he was permitted to introduce evidence of conversations had with appellant relative to a settlement, and of the settlement with the casualty company at appellant's suggestion. This was competent upon the issue as to whether appellant was or was not the master of respondent. Evidence was also introduced of the taking out of casualty insurance covering accidents to the men at work in the mill. This was admissible upon the same issue as to whether appellant or Pineo was the employer and master of respondent. It is true this court has in a number of cases held it to be error to inject into the case the fact that a defendant in a personal injury suit is protected by insurance of this character, and such is the undoubted law; but here was a sharp conflict between the parties as to who was running the mill at the time of the accident, and who, if...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moore-Handley Hardware Co. v. Williams, 6 Div. 406.
... ... v. Crenshaw, 21 Ariz. 15, 184 P. 996; Nissen ... Transfer & Storage Co. v. Miller, 72 Ind.App. 261, 125 ... N.E. 652; Robinson v. Hill, 60 Wash. 615, 111 P ... 871; Sempier v. Goemann, 165 Wis. 103, 161 N.W. 354, ... Ann.Cas.1918C, 670; Perkins v. Rice, 187 Mass. 28, ... ...
-
Boten v. Sheffield Ice Co.
...so, its admission was not error. To the same effect, see Finkbine Lumber Co. v. Cunningham, 101 Miss. 292, 57 South. 916; Robinson v. Hill, 60 Wash. 615, 111 Pac. 871. In Grant v. National Ry. Spring Co., 100 App. Div. 234, 91 N. Y. Supp. 805, loc. cit. 807, it is said, speaking of a decisi......
-
Kadiak Fisheries Co. v. Murphy Diesel Co.
...the jury that it calls for mistrial or new trial. See, for example, Edwards v. Burke, 36 Wash. 107, 78 P. 610 (1904); Robinson v. Hill, 60 Wash. 615, 111 P. 871 (1910); Armstrong v. Yakima Hotel Co., 75 Wash. 477, 135 P. 233 (1913); Moy Quon v. Furuya Co., 81 Wash. 526, 143 P. 99 (1914); Je......
-
Allen v. Garibaldi
... ... his son at the time of the injury. In support of this ... position, he cites the following authorities: Robinson v ... Hill, 60 Wash. 615, 111 P. 871; Boten v. Ice ... Co., 180 Mo.App. 96, 166 S.W. 883; Oil Co. v. Carson ... (Tex. Civ. App.) 185 S.W. 1002; ... ...