, 1892-04-25
PERSONAL INJURIES
A Suit to Recover From a Saw.
mill Owner.

~ W AASAs
A King County Superior Court De
cision Reversed why the su-
pre1me Court Sent the Case Back
to be Tried again.
j. /. Week, respondent, VS.. Fremont Mill
company, appellant. No. 800.
This action was brought by respondent
to recover for personal injuries received by
him, while in the employ of appellant, as
atrimmer at appellants mill, in Fremont,
King county, Washington.
The position of respondent was by saw,
called the trim-saW which was situated
somewhere about midway between the
head saw and the edger. Thelumber, after
leaving the head saw, was showed along
rollers to the trim-saW, where after being
trimmed and cut into certain sizes, it was
showed past it, and along rollers toward
the edger, or out Of the mill as the case
might be. 1t was respondents duty either
by taking hold of the lumber with his
hands, or by hooking an instrument there
in, called the "picaroon," to help pull it
up to the trim-saw and adjust it there in
the position in which it was to be cut, and
then it was his duty to take hold of the
handle attached to the saw, and by pulling
the saw towards him, run it through the
lumber. The frame Of this trim-saW was
suspended from point directly above the
rollers. When the saw had been run
through the lumber in this manner it was
drawn back by weights attached to lever
beneath the foorS A wire rope ran back
from the saw through sheave in the wall,
and from there below the floor, where it
was connected with this lever upon which
weights we're adjusted sufficient to draw
the saw out Of the way, and hold it there
until it was to be used again by pulling it
forward Whhn the SOW yIac n haa
it was respondents duty to assist in NOV
ing the lumber past the position of the
saw, along the rollers towards the edger, or
out of the mill. In moving the lumber
from the right side, and past the saw
towards the left side, or the side where the
edger was, it was necessary for him to pass
in front of it. While in the act of return
ing from the left side to the right side,
after having assisted in showing some of
the lumber to the edger, the saw, by the
breaking OF the wire rope, swung forward
against his right ARM inficting the in
juries complained of. He alleges, in his
complaint, that defendant used ian old,
worn, unsafe and insecure steel wire, for
the purpose of pulling the saw back into
its position, /" ETC., and that "said steel wire
broke, and caused the saw to spring for
ward towards the plaintiff
The material allegations Of the complaint
are denied by the defendants answer, and
i'll addition it alleges that plaintiff was well
acquainted with the construction and Op-
GRAFTON of said saw and appliances, and had
the same means of knowledge of any de-
feet that might exist in the steel wire as
any other servant Of the defendant, and
that it was the duty of the plaintiff to see
that the machinery and appliances were in
good order and repair, and that the defend
ant and it's servants used due care and dill
genCe about the construction OF said saw
and its appliances, and had no knowledge
Of any defect therein prior to the happen
ing of the accident; that in the selection of
said steel wire it used proper precautions
to procure safe, secure and suitable steel wire
and that said injury was not caused by any
negligence of defendant, but was caused by
the negligence Of plaintiff himself.
When the plaintiff rested his case the de-
fendant moved for a non suit on the ground
that his own evidence would not warrant
recovery, which motion the court denied.
The respondent had been at work on the
trimming saw, in charge of it, about three
months before the accident occurred, and
had worked around and about its immedi-
ate vicinity for three weeks, or nearly so,
before taking charge of it, and in all had
been employed about this mill for a period
of some six weeks before he began to run
the trimmer.
The evidence upon most of the points
going to show negligence on the part of the
defendant was conflicting. The jury hay
ing found for the plaintiff must necessarily
,H a ute y mS@s
is as to the negligence of the plaintiff him
a. GU. Sna grs ony oil l9 ~ W. Oee 1i ny
AZ 5s9 fs II OT iIll CIV
~ H. II
II ~ z
seS + ira+ fo s I
sfq af n eiiG AZ qiIefg ~ n7 y ms
6lat ne ~ og Kn9W ohg[e was 4 a1y aanger
rg1 oMig ~ 1ls Ta y
~ ~ : 4 f'e
~ ~ 80 ~
ae - mtss =
~ sIc 81
%0fK @ He c5aans nd ba ~ snen m lnSaqea4n at was
tyem l III ~ Gtlag a. ~ wa &T ~ - dy+
i9 @ ,lt - lf9 f G W
epinar 1'vt bin6 i P vas iG - III 4
49, ~ - IL l,la5 ~
uUo9 saiom te ad
80 CD o,1d = gso
a 4 -
apReafs 5ddI & ne uerseoou ~ y Ms ls GusS ~
less Of t5a fact to bee he had been
to5 70 Al 81 ~ g., - W tba
snd @ ~ sG q ae be
a. 10 ~ CT -
- stTToIt w - 1lf fo,,,a o99
on+o fra,e III sta7,a5 +a ne
caiiinr, c15 ~ tbaTa 71as y,Ti1.e ,o, ~
hold f bacF ~ 'll0i' '''' . "-i' -0'0 "
% q "A How ,JsrgH, did tbat roma rnn9
ow Tan ~ ogar Sllas II ooR5 H. fun Ma ana down
stairs. It wasn't fastened to 81 the fh wal, it