Opinion ID: 1399781
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: did the plaintiff disobey a command by the defendant?

Text: We have heretofore indicated the different versions as to what the defendant said the last time he talked to the crew before the accident. [3] If the plaintiff disobeyed a positive command not to move the elevator until the defendant returned, the plaintiff was, as a matter of law, contributorily negligent ( Richardson v. Pacific Power & Light Co. (1941), 11 Wn. (2d) 288, 118 P. (2d) 985; Schmidt v. Pelz (1939), 198 Wash. 80, 87 P. (2d) 278), and the jury was so instructed. [4] The jury was likewise instructed that if the defendant's statement was that the elevator would be moved when he returned and that if such a statement could be construed as equivocal and not a positive command, or if he accompanied his order not to move the elevator with another order to top off the stack, and that an employee of the age and experience of the plaintiff would reasonably believe that topping off the stack required the moving of the elevator, then the plaintiff was not barred from recovering simply because he moved or participated in the moving of the elevator. This instruction was likewise correct. Shepard v. Payne (1922), 60 Utah 140, 206 Pac. 1098; Texas & Pac. R. Co. v. Leighty (1895), 88 Tex. 604, 32 S.W. 515. [5] The trial court properly instructed on both the plaintiff's and defendant's position relative to what the defendant said and what the plaintiff understood, or should have understood, therefrom. The situation presented a jury question; and not the basis for a holding, as the defendant so strenuously urges, that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent as a matter of law.