Well v. Moran Bros. Co.

• Decision Date: 29 September 1909
• Citation: 55 Wash. 102,104 P. 172
• Parties: WELL v. MORAN BROS. CO. et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

104 P. 172

55 Wash. 102

WELL v. MORAN BROS. CO. et al.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

September 29, 1909

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

Action by Thomas Well against the Moran Bros. Company, a corporation, Robert Moran and another. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Wright & Kelleher and Harold Preston, for appellants.

Casey &amp Casey, for respondent.

FULLERTON, J.

The respondent brought this action against the appellants to recover damages for personal injuries received by him while in the appellants' employ as a machinist's helper working on the battleship Nebraska. The jury at the trial in the court below returned a verdict for him in the sum of $4,000, for which sum judgment was entered in his favor. This appeal is from the judgment so entered.

The accident to the respondent occurred in the forward turret of the battleship. The turret rests on the protective deck, and is operated by motors placed thereon. It is circular in form and inside of it an opening extends from the turret pan, the floor directly below the floor on which the guns are placed down through it and through the ship proper to a floor known as the '12-inch handling room.' Surrounding this space are several floors or galleries, which, commencing at the bottom, are called in the record by the following names: The '12-inch handling room,' the '8-inch handling room,' the 'protective deck,' the 'gallery above the protective deck,' the 'turret pan,' and the 'top of the turret'; this last being the floor on which the heavy guns are placed. In the center of this opening is placed a framework running from the floor of the 12-inch handling room to the gun floor, to which framework are attached the tracks for the ammunition hoists. These tracks are perpendicular until they reach near the turret pan when they separate, the one swerving towards the breech of the right-hand gun and the other towards the left, and pass through the floor of the turret pan by separate openings. The several floors or galleries above mentioned are connected by ladders. A ladder also extends from the 12-inch handling room up the center frame between the tracks of the ammunition hoists to the level of the gallery immediately above the protective deck, and is connected with the gallery by means of a grating extending from the top of the ladder to the gallery floor. From the gallery floor last mentioned ladders run up through the openings in the turret pan through which the ammunition hoists pass. These openings are opposite each other, and, while the ladders passing through them may be used with safety when the ammunition hoists are not in operation, they are extremely dangerous when the hoists are being used, owing to the narrowness of the passageway through the turret pan.

The accident occurred in the afternoon. At that time the respondent had been working in and around the turret for a day and a half, doing such work as he was directed to do either by the machinist of whom he was the helper or the foreman in charge. The turret was then practically completed and its various parts were being tested before the government inspectors. Either the day before or on the morning of the day of the accident the turret itself had been tested for mobility, and in the test the motors operating it had been used. Oil had been used on the motors rather freely, and had run down and accumulated on the floor around them. The foreman, observing this, directed the respondent to go and get some waste, and wipe up the oil. In obedience to this order, the respondent started to climb up through the turret to the upper deck, where he expected to find some waste, and had reached and stepped out onto the foot of the left-hand ladder leading to the turret pan, when the ammunition hoist descended and struck him on the head, causing the injury for which he sues. The witnesses do not agree as to the place the respondent was standing when the order to get the waste was given. The respondent thinks he was then on the protective deck, while the foreman testifies he was on the floor below the protective deck, the floor of the 8-inch handling room. The point is material only as it indicates the probable route of the respondent in going for the waste. If he was on the floor of the protective deck, he probably took the ladder between the ammunition hoists to a place on a level with the gallery above the protective deck, and crossed the grating above mentioned onto the floor of the gallery. This course would bring him directly in contact with the tracks of the ammunition hoists, so that, if either hoist had been in operation, he could scarcely have failed to note the fact. If, however, he was already on the protective deck, he probably took a side ladder to the gallery,...