, 1892-04-26
PERSONAL INJURIES
A Suit to Recover From a Saw
mill Owner.
A King County Superior Court De-
cision Reversed why the su-
preme Court sent the Case Back
to be Tried Again.
IConcluded from Monday.7

Concluded from Monday.
He testified that the saw sometimes got
out Of repair when he was operating it, anc
that Snyder repaired it; also that Snyder
looked over the machinery when he told
him to, and that he had seen Mr.. Benson
operate the saw before he (plaintifD took
charge of it. In answer to a question as tC
whether he had not adjusted the weights
in the story below, he testified, s'I guess ]
did try to fix it once but [ didn't under
stand the business, and so didn't do much
of it, put in just little piece of iron. =
He was asked how long time it was be-
fore he got hurt that Snyder repaired the
saw and answered, IT told him that the
saw wasn't quite right a good many times,
and he has fixed it more than once" He
thought the last time was about two weeks
before he got hurt. He further testified
that the wire rope slooked dark and rusty
like, and it was worn / know in good
many places.' He also said there was
nothing to prevent the saw from swinging
forward in front of the rollers and striking
him if he was in front of it, and the rope
should break.
The following question was asked him :
You stated that, from question put to
you by counsel that there had been no ex.
animation of this rope; suppose there had
been an examination could they have dis
covered the defects in this wire?'' And he
ttllSW S1OQ Gp blIs 4I0 lOllOMlIlS QuSS-
tions were asked him and answers made by
him.
You knew when you put the weights
on the saw That it was an old piece of rope
A. Yes, sir.
q, How long was that before you got
your arm hurt A. Well, that was just
after started there.
@. And that old worn-out rope, or worn
rope, that you speak of, was on there about
t0paa he hofo h ~
"A. Yes, sir,
1t clearly appears from the plaintiffs own
testimony that he knew the bad condition
of the wire rope, although he says he did
not suppose it would break. He knew
however, that it sustained weight of 15O
pounds, and if it broke when he was pass
ang IN front OF the saw, as he says he was
constantly required to do, that the saw
would likely strike him i'll swinging for
ward.
The plaintiff was a man 80 years old, and
for aught that appears was possessed of or
dlnary sense. No one could operate this
saw without appreeiating the danger con-
nected Herewith in case the rope to hold
it back should give way. 1t required no
expert knowledge to apprise one of the
fact that an old, worn rope sustaining a
weight of 150 pounds was in danger Of
breaking. The danger was apparent to the
senses, and operating it undersuch circum-
bGdllCSS DIS dIp SuOWn LII GQlS case, ne must
be deemed to have assumed the apparent
risk connected Herewith.
Anderson VS.. Akely Lumber company,
40 N. w. Rep. 664.
Berger VS.. st. Paul M. & M. Railway
company. 80 Mimi. rs.
Russell VS.. Minneapolis & st. Louis Rail
way company, 80 Mimi, 231.
Heath VS.. Whitebreast Coal Mining com
pany, 65 Iowa 1877.
McGlynn VS.. Brodie 81 Cal 377
The testimony throughout the case shows
that he knew as much If not more about
the condition of the rope than anyone else
about the mill. His own attempts to fix
the saw by adjusting the weights and his
notifying Snyder at different times to re-
pair it show he understood he had some
sort Of charge over the saw, and its appli-
ances, and that it was expected of him
that he would notify the foreman when re-
pairs were needed which he could not or
should not choose to make. He also knew
Snyder's duties were, as foreman, to repair
and supply machinery, and he testified
that Snyder did repair this particular ma
chinery when he asked him to.
The testimony as to any negligence upon
the part of the defendants through a fail
ure upon the part of Snyder or at all was
conflicting as stated. 1t was contended
by defendant that new rope had been put
on shortly after the plaintiff had conf
menced work and that there were no ap-
parent defects in the rope which broke.
That Snyder had no notice or knowledge
of any defect in it. The plaintiff denied
that the rope had been changed but did not
claim that he had notified Snyder Of its
unsafe condition. He said he did not
think it would break, but that it's old and
worn condition would have been apparent
to any looking at it. Under the law ap-
plicable to the facts appearing by the
plaintiffs individual testimony there
could have been no recovery.
The motion for non-suit should have
been granted. The Judgment is sreYersed,
and the cause remanded, with instructions
10 dismiss it. SooTT, J,
We concur: Anders, @. j.; Dunbar, u;
Hoyt, u; Stiles, j.