Plaintiffs attempt to bolster their claims against Omni in their response, adding factual allegations related to "[t]herapists," "[s]upervisors," and "employees" of Omni [Doc. 238 p. 2]. Additionally, plaintiffs now say "[t]he facts listed in the Complaints give detailed explanation as to how Omni, Foothills, and their agents Hamilton and Goldstine participated in this" action and that they "clearly claimed that Goldstine and Hamilton . . . were contracted/employed by Foothills as well as Omni," without pointing to where in the complaint such facts are alleged [Id. p. 9, 11].
It must be borne in mind that appellant is a blacksmith of thirty years' experience, and on the morning of the accident he himself adopted the method by which he chose to do the work, and voluntarily selected his working place without direction from the general foreman. In Newman v. Rothschild Co., 135 Wn. 509, 238 P. 2, we said: "The charge of negligence that the appellant was required to stand upon the timber which had been put in cross sticks has no merit. He had arranged it. If it was dangerous, he knew it better than anyone else could.