Wild v. Oregon Short Line & U. N. Ry. Co.

Decision Date08 July 1891
Citation27 P. 954,21 Or. 159
PartiesWILD v. OREGON SHORT LINE & U.N. RY. CO. [1]
CourtOregon Supreme Court

Appeal from circuit court, Wasco county.

Action for personal injuries by George B. Wild against the Oregon Short Line & U.N. Railway Company. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Facts examined, and held that there was no evidence before the jury upon which the court could properly submit the question of defendant's negligence to the jury; and held, further that when large timbers were being moved on rollers, and those engaged in the work failed to keep the rollers at right angles with the piece of timber being moved, and by reason thereof it slued around so that the end struck a lumber pile which caused some planks to fall upon the plaintiff's leg, by means of which he was injured, that such negligence was the negligence of the plaintiff's fellow-servants for which the defendant is not responsible.

Where the plaintiff assisted in the construction of the chute for moving large timbers, and had as complete knowledge of its sufficiency for the purpose for which it was constructed as the defendant, and received an injury in the moving of the timbers down said chute, defendant is not responsible on account of its alleged unsuitableness for the purpose for which it was used.

S.H Hazard, for appellant.

J.W Bennett, for respondent.

STRAHAN C.J., (after stating the facts as above.)

An unusual number of exceptions were taken to the instructions given and refused by the court, but the view we have taken of the case renders it unnecessary to examine each exception. The real facts in this case are covered up in a vast amount of unnecessary verbiage, but, when relieved of it, they are few and plain. In the spring of 1889 the plaintiff entered the service of the defendant to pile lumber at its saw-mill on Coos bay, and the uncontradicted evidence shows that one employed in that capacity, according to the uniform custom of the mills there, also assisted in taking care of all the lumber that came from the mill; and it further appears that the plaintiff, after his employment, and up to the time of the injury complained of, assisted in moving and caring for whatever lumber was turned out by the mill. One Shagreen and Foley were employed by the defendant, who worked with plaintiff about the yard, Foley acting in the capacity of a kind of wharf-boss. The accident complained of occurred in moving timbers from defendant's saw-mill into Coos bay. The timbers to be moved were 12 in number, 20 x 22 inches and 88 feet long. The distance from the end of the car track to the bay was 68 feet, which was the distance the timbers had to be moved. A pile of lumber 64 or 65 feet long, from 15 to 20 feet wide, and about 8 feet high, extended from the mill nearly to the edge of the wharf. On the top of this lumber pile a chute was constructed by Foley and the plaintiff, but under Foley's directions. In the first place, a number of pieces of timber 5 inches thick, from 12 to 33 inches wide, were laid across the lumber pile, and on top of these were laid two planks, each 4 x 12 inches wide, extending to the edge of the wharf on a gradual incline. On the top of the chute thus formed were placed three rollers 10 inches in diameter and 2 1/2 feet long. The planks were securely spiked to their supports, and dogged together so that the same could not and did not separate. The timbers were pinched from the carriage until they rested upon the rollers. The rollers were kept straight by men with mauls attending them, as the timber was slowly and gradually moved upon them. The incline was so slight and gradual that they had no difficulty in regulating the movement of the timber on the rollers until the middle of the stick passed the edge of the wharf, where it plunged into the waters of the bay. All of the timbers were launched without accident to any one until it came to the last. After this stick was upon the rollers, they were not kept at...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Cederson v. Oregon R. & Nav. Co.
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • November 12, 1900
    ... ... way of the defendant, and in close proximity to the railway ... line at a point thereon where a cut had been made by the ... defendant and grantors in the side of ... relied on and the resultant injury are described with ... substantial accuracy." Wild v. Railway Co., 21 ... Or. 159, 27 P. 954, decided within a month of the Knahtla ... of a furnace and others as a short cut to a station and post ... office, and was injured, it was held that she could not be ... ...
  • O'Neal v. Meier & Frank Co.
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • February 8, 1961
    ...kind either preceding or followed by a specific statement of the facts, the specific statement governs. Wild v. Oregon Short Line & U. N. Ry. Co., 21 Or. 159, 161-162, 27 P. 954. See also Cosgrove v. Tracey, 156 Or. 1, 12, 64 P.2d 1321. The general specification, therefore, need not be furt......
  • Cosgrove v. Tracey
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • February 9, 1937
    ... ... line. Plaintiff saw a bent drag-link, bent inward about three ... inches ... indicated by the Stutz. At Sandy, Or., they stopped a short ... time and then continued on their way to Portland. When they ... Knott, 100 Or. 59, 196 P. 476; ... Maynard v. Oregon R. Co., 43 Or. 63, 73, 74, 72 P ... 590 ... If ... plaintiff is limited to his specific allegations. Wild v ... Oregon Short-Line & U. N. R. Co., 21 Or. 159, 162, 27 P ... ...
  • Lucid v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours Powder Co.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • October 7, 1912
    ...by the general averment that the defendant negligently did the particular act which resulted in damage to plaintiff.' In Wild v. O.S.L.R. Co., 21 Or. 159, 27 P. 954, allegation of negligence was that the defendant failed to provide a safe place for the plaintiff to work-- 'but negligently a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT