Sandquist v. Independent Telephone Co.

• Decision Date: 15 April 1905
• Parties: SANDQUIST v. INDEPENDENT TELEPHONE CO.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

80 P. 539

38 Wash. 313

SANDQUIST v. INDEPENDENT TELEPHONE CO.

Supreme Court of Washington

April 15, 1905

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

Action by John Sandquist against the Independent Telephone Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Kerr & McCord and John P. Hartman, for appellant.

Benson & Hall, for respondent.

FULLERTON J.

On the 24th day of March, 1903, the plaintiff in this action was in the employ of the defendant, and was engaged in taking down and removing a telephone pole at the corner of Fourth avenue and Marion streets, in the city of Seattle. The pole was about 45 feet in length, 13 inches in diameter at the butt and 6 or 7 inches in diameter at the top. In the work of taking down the pole the plaintiff handled an appliance called a 'deadman,' which consisted of a round piece of timber 12 feet in length and 3 1/2 inches in diameter. A steel crotch or saddle was attached to the top or end of the deadman to receive and hold the pole in place in the process of raising or lowering it. Employed with the plaintiff were the foreman of the defendant, six pikemen, and the plaintiff's brother, who handled the second deadman. The pikes used by the pikemen consisted of poles about 20 feet in length with pikes or spikes in the ends. The telephone pole was taken down or lowered in the following manner: The earth was first partially removed from the side towards which the pole was to be lowered. The pole was then raised or lifted out of the hole, and tipped over to an angle of about 45 degrees. The deadman was next placed under it and the pikemen took their station on each side of the pole some six or eight feet apart. On the occasion in question there were three pikemen on either side. The points of the pikes were placed in the telephone pole to control its downward movement. The pole was then rocked over from the first deadman onto the second, which was placed farther towards the top of the pole, the pole being gradually lowered onto the second deadman by the aid of the pikemen. The first deadman was then removed and placed still farther towards the top of the pole, and the pole rocked back and lowered onto it in like manner. This process was continued until the pole was brought near enough to the ground to be reached by the hands. The pole which caused the injury complained of in this action was first placed on the deadman handled by the plaintiff, and was then rocked over and lowered onto the deadman handled by his brother. The plaintiff then removed his deadman from its first position back towards the middle of the pole. As he did so, the pole in some manner struck the deadman and pressed down upon it. The foot of the deadman slipped some two or three feet on the slanting ground, and the pole dropped lower than it otherwise would. After the deadman slipped as above stated, the plaintiff released his told and stepped to one side. Immediately thereafter he ran, apparently to avoid injury in case the pole should fall. The pole got beyond the control of the pikemen, keeled over on the deadman, and fell to the ground, striking the plaintiff, and seriously injuring his foot and leg. To recover damages for the injury so received, this action was brought. The plaintiff had judgment below, and the defendant appeals.

The following grounds of negligence were charged in the complaint: (1) That the respondent was inexperienced in the work of taking down poles; that the appellant's foreman had knowledge of such inexperience, and failed to give him proper instructions as to the avoidance of danger; (2) insufficiency of the men employed to assist the respondent in the work of taking town the pole; (3) insufficiency of pikes supplied; (4) directing the respondent to place the deadman under the pole in an extremely dangerous manner, without taking proper precautions for his safety; and (5) negligently and carelessly suffering the pole to fall, whereby the respondent was injured.

We are inclined to agree with the appellant that there was no proof to sustain the first and third charges of negligence as above set forth. There was a sufficient supply of pikes for all of the men employed in the work of taking down the pole, and the respondent had been employed in and about the same kind of work for a period of about three months. His testimony shows him to be a man of more than average intelligence, and he fully understood all the details of the work in which he was employed. He had received sufficient instructions, if any were necessary. The appellant further contends that the second ground of negligence is not actionable, and cites Grout v. Tacoma Eastern R Co., 33 Wash. 524, 74 P. 665. This is in a measure true. It appears in this case that the pole in question...