Seewald v. Harding Lumber Co.

• Decision Date: 24 June 1908
• Parties: SEEWALD v. HARDING LUMBER CO.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

96 P. 221

49 Wash. 655

SEEWALD v. HARDING LUMBER CO.

Supreme Court of Washington

June 24, 1908

Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County; W. O. Chapman, Judge.

Action by Chris Seewald against the Harding Lumber Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded, with instructions to grant a new trial.

Leo &amp Cass, for appellant.

Blattner & Chester, for respondent.

HADLEY C.J.

This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries received by plaintiff while in the employ of the defendant. The cause came on for trial before a jury, and, at the close of the plaintiff's testimony, a nonsuit was granted, and the action dismissed. The plaintiff has appealed.

There was evidence to the following effect, and for the purposes of this appeal it must be taken as true: The respondent, at the time appellant was injured, owned and operated a logging business in Pierce county. In the logging operations a steam engine, known as a 'donkey' engine, was used in moving logs from where they were cut in the woods to the mill, or to the place where they were loaded on railroad cars for transportation. The logs were drawn by means of a steel cable, operated on a drum by the donkey engine. When a log was moved a short wire cable, called a 'choker,' was passed around it, and fastened near the end of the log. This was attached to the main line or cable and when the latter was wound on the drum by the engine, the log was drawn. The appellant was known as 'hook tender,' and it was his duty to attend to the choker and cable, and fasten them to the logs, in readiness for moving. It was also his duty, as the logs were drawn, to walk along with them, and to direct the course of the cable and logs, so as to avoid obstructions as far as practicable. By reason of intervening obstructions, it was often necessary to stop the engine and change the course of the cable. A signalman was stationed about midway between the engineer and the hook tender, and so as to be in sight of each of them. According to the situation and nature of the obstructions, it was sometimes necessary to start the engine slowly, and sometimes at a high rate of speed. The hook tender, who was with the logs, understood the situation, and gave the signal to the signalman, to be by the latter in turn given to the engineer when to start the engine, and whether to start it slowly or rapidly. The signalman was the only medium of communication between the hook tender and the engineer as to when and how the engine should be started. There was an established code of signals, well known and understood by all woodsmen. It was the duty of the engineer to observe and obey the signals having regard both to the proper movement of the logs, and the safety of the men. Just before the injury to appellant, the engine was stopped for the purpose of readjusting the cable and choker, so as to change the course of the log being drawn, and clear an obstruction. After the readjustment the signal was given, in the manner aforesaid, for the engineer to start the engine slowly. The...