Tweeten

(after stating the facts as above). [1, 2] The court below correctly ruled that the plaintiff was the fellow servant of Watson, the lineman under whose direction he was working, for, while under the settled rule of the Supreme Court of the state of Washington the doctrine is established that the question of fellow service will not be resolved by measuring the rank of the employés, but by the character of the act itself, that in order to be the representative of his principal, an employé need not be the foreman in charge of the work as a whole, or have authority to employ or discharge men, but that it is sufficient if he have the authority to direct the work in hand, and that the employer is.responsible if the injured employé acted in obedience to the command of one having authority to give it (Durante v. Great Northern R. Co., 64 Wasli. 395, 116 Pac. 870 ; McLeod v. Chicago, Milwaukee, etc., R. Co., 65 Wash. 62 , 117 Pac. 749 ; Allend v. Spokane Falls & N. Ry. Co., 21 Wash. 324 , 58 Pac. 244 ; Martin v. Hill, 66 Wash. 433 , 119 Pac. 849 ; Olson v. Erickson, 53 Wash. 458 , 102 Pac. 400 ; Johnson v. Motor Shingle Co., 50 Wash. 154 , 96 Pac. 962 ; Jasper v. Bunker Hill, etc., Min. &…