Seymour Dwight Thompson.

Commentaries on the law of negligence in all relations online

. (page 35 of 165)
Online LibrarySeymour Dwight ThompsonCommentaries on the law of negligence in all relations → online text (page 35 of 165)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

4 Attix v. Minnesota Sandstone
Co., 85 Minn. 142; s. c. 88 N. W.
Rep. 436 (derrick-boom broke and
killed foreman, who was not
shown to have had anything to do
with the selection of the boom).

'On this principle it was held
that the fact that a wrench, fur-
nished by a master to be used by
his servant In screwing nuts upon
iron rods, broke, because of its in-
sufficient strength to do the work,
could not render the master liable
for an injury received by the ser-
vant by falling, in consequence of
the breaking of the wrench; since
the wrench itself was not a dan-
gerous tool, and since the injury
which resulted from its breaking
was one that could not have been
reasonably anticipated: Garnett v.
PhoBnix Bridge Co., 98 Fed. Rep.
192. .

•Whitney &c. Co. v. O'Rourke,
172 111. 177; s. c. 50 N. E. Rep. 242;
aff'g s. c. 68 111. App. 487 (if he
knew, or by the exercise of due
care might have known of the de-
fect) ; Edward Hines Lumber Co.
v. Ligas, 172 111. 315; s. c. 50 N. B.
Rep. 225; aff'g s. c. 68 111. App. 523
(employe who, in piling lumber, al-
lows certain boards to project so
other planks can be laid on them
to form a scaffold for other ser-
vants, must use reasonable care, in
selecting the boards so allowed to
project, to see that they are suit-
able for the purpose); Ide v.
Fratcher, 194 111. 552; s. c. 62 N. E.
Rep. 814; aff'g s. c. 96 111. App. 549
(could not excuse their own negli-
gence in knowingly allowing an
emery-wheel to be defective, by
showing that the fellow servants
of deceased negligently allowed the
wheel to run when not fn use, or
that they otherwise contributed to
the accident); Frost Man. Co. v.


Smith, 197 111. 253; s. c. 64 N. E.
Rep. 305; aff'g a c. 98 111. App. 308
(servant injured by breaking down
of a scaffold could recover damages
if the accident was caused by the
negligence of the master, through
its superintendent, either in the
construction of the scaffold or in
its use) ; Gormully Ac. Man. Co. v.
Olsen, 72 111. App. 32; s. c. 2 Chic
L. J. Wkly. 514 (criticising an in-
struction as to the degree of care
which the master is required to
use in this particular); Union
Brilge Co. v. Teehan, 92 111. App.
259; s. c. aff'd, 190 111. 374; 60 N.
E. Rep. 533; Street's Western Sta-
ble Car Line v. Bonander, 97 111.
App. 601; s. c. aff'd, 196 111. 15; 63
N. E. Rep. 688; Hass v. Chicago
Ac. R. Co., 97 111. App. 624 (ser-
vant has a right to rely on the per-
formance by the master of this
duty); Mallen v. Waldowski, 101
111. Apt. 367 (the fact that a mas-
ter furtishes the servant with a
machine which works improperly 9
makes Jt a defective machine, irre-
spective of the cause); Pennsyl-
vania Co. v. Witte, 15 Ind. App.
583; s. c. * Am. ft Eng. Corp. Cas.
(N. S.) 629; 43 N. BL Rep. 319; 44
N. E. Rep. 37i ( mU st exercise the
same care to kvjp them in such
condition); Atchi8x n ^c. r. Co. v .
Kingscott, 65 Kan. 131; s . c . 69
Pac. Rep. 184 (duty i# a railway
company to provide bar^ig f or us
employes, emptying oil b> the use
of compressed air, that are reason-
ably sound, and also to usv due
care in inspecting the conditio. f
the barrels before they are fil*>4
with oil); Covington Ac. Bridge
Co. v. Goodnight, 22 Ky. L. Rep.
1242: s. c. 60 S. W. Rep. 415 (no
off. rep.) (rule applied where a
part of the work of remodelling the
defendant's bridge was done by the

Digitized by



§3987. Judicial Statements of this Duty. — A judicial statement
of this duty is, that an employer owes the. duty to his servant to use
ordinary care and diligence to provide such sound and sufficient ap-
pliances or instrumentalities as are reasonably calculated to insure the
safety of the servant in performing the service, to discover and repair
any defects therein, and to provide a reasonably safe place in which
to perform the service ; and if he fail in either of these respects, and
injury result to the servant because of such failure, the employer will
be liable. 7

§ 3988. This Duty Primary and Unassignable. — As already seen, 8

this is one of those primary, personal and unassignable duties which

the law puts upon the master, — the meaning being that he becomes

responsible for the negligence or inexperience of whatever person to

whom he delegates the performance of it. 9 This may be well illus-

defendant's own servants, and a
part of It by another company
under a contract with the defend-
ant, and in the course of the work
the tools and appliances of each
company were used by the other as
occasion required, and a servant of
the defendant was injured by the
breaking of a chain belonging to
the other company while it was be-
ing used by the defendant); Dra-
peau v. International Paper Co., 96
Me. 299; & c. 52 Atl. Rep. 647 (cap-
stan not having good effectual
guard to hold the cable in place
not a reasonably suitable appli-
ance for drawing logs); Gray v.
Commutator Co., 85 Minn. 463; & c.
89 N. W. Rep. 322; Jacobson v.
Johnson, 87 Minn. 185; s. c. 91 N.
Vi. Rep. 465 (master cannot shield
himself behind the opinion of an
expert without making it appear
that the examination by the expert
was thorough); Orr v. Southern
Bell Telephone Co., 130 N. C. 627;
s. c. 41 S. B. Rep. 880 ( employ § of
defendant company injured on the
first day of his employment in tak-
ing down a telephone-pole because
bo pikes, or "dead men," were fur-
nished with which to do the work,
such tools having been left in the
defendant's workshop several miles
away, — company held liable though
the superintendent had told the
men to get the tools before they
started, — a case seemingly badly

T HiU v. Southern Pac. Co., 23
Utah 94; s. c. 63 Pac. Rep. 814.

•Ante, § 3986.

•Croker v. Pusey &c. Co., 3 Pen.
(Del.) 1; s. c. 50 Atl. Rep. 61; Ed-
ward Hlnes Lumber Co. "v. Ligas,
172 111. 315; s. c. 50 N. B. Rep.
225; aff'g s. c. 68 111. App. 523
(negligence of builder of scaffold
is negligence of master); Galasso
v. National S. S. Co., 27 App. Div.
(N. Y.) 169; s. c. 50 N. Y. Supp.
417; rehearing denied, 51 N. Y.
Supp. 136 (defendant did not ful-
fill its full duty in instructing a
servant to make all necessary re-
pairs to machinery, and is liable
for his neglect to repair latch on
self-locking bucket used in unload-
ing ship, by reason of which failure
the bucket "dumped" on striking
another bucket and injured plain-
tiff) [distinguishing Schulz v.
Rohe, 149 N. Y. 132 (where it was
held that, assuming a foreman to
be the alter ego of his master, and
that he has knowledge of a defect
in a machine, negligence in failing '
to repair it is not imputable to him
or his master as regards an opera-
tive injured while using the ma-
chine, where the foreman directs
an engineer, employed for the pur-
pose of making all repairs of ma-
chinery, to repair it; and where it
was further held that the neglect
of such engineer to repair the de-
fect is the negligence of a fellow
servant as regards the injured op-


Digitized by


4 Thomp. Neg.] duties and liabilities of the master.

trated by a holding to the effect that a railroad company is bound to
use ordinary or reasonable care to furnish safe machinery and ap-
pliances for use by its employes in operating its road, and cannot re-
lieve itself of this duty in regard to the condition of its cars by dele-
gating the duty to a car-inspector, but is liable for his neglect; and
it is immaterial that a defective car belongs to another road, it being
the duty of the company to use the same care in protecting its em-
ployes as if the car w£re its own. 10 The very important question,
What are unalienable duties of the master, and what are mere inci-
dents of the work ? in* which latter case the negligence, if any, is as-
cribed to the fault of a fellow servant, is discussed in a future Sub-
division. 11

§ 3989. Degree of Care Demanded of the Master in this Respect. —

It has been affirmed, 12 and denied, 13 that the master discharges his
duty to his servant, if he uses such care as persons of ordinary pru-
dence would employ to the end that the machinery and. appliances
which he requires them to use are reasonably safe ; but that he is not
required to do everything that can reasonably be done for their safety. 14
The case referred to as denying this proposition holds that, in the se-
lection of tools and machinery by a master, the test of their fitness is
not that others use like tools and machinery, but to consider whether
they are reasonably safe and suitable for the work to be done, and such
as a reasonably careful man would use under like circumstances. 15

§ 3990. The "Reputable Manufacturer" Doctrine. — This doctrine
is not that a master is exonerated from liability for dangerous defects
in machinery, tools, and appliances which he purchases from a reputa-
ble manufacturer, by reason of the manufacturer being reputable ; but,

10 International Ac. R. Co. v. Ker- shop where the elbow was con-
nan, 78 Tex. 294; s. c. 9 L. R. A. structed, there being no pretense
703. that the superintendent took the

11 Post, §§ 4851, 4923, et seq. In a place of the workman who ma-
case which seems to exhibit a nlpulated the tools: Alexander v.
complete obfuscation of legal con- Pennsylvania Water Co., 201 Pa.
ceptions, it appeared that the St. 252; s. c. 50 Atl. Rep. 991.
plaintiff was injured by the giv- "Texas Ac. R. Co. v. Bingle, 9
ing way of an elbow in a Tex. Civ. App. 822; s. c. 29 S. W.
steam-pump. The court held that Rep. 674; s. c. on second appeal, 16
if the accident was caused by Tex. Civ. App. 653;. 41 S. W. Rep.
the stripping of the threads, the 90; writ of error denied, 91 Tex.
defendant could not be held liable 287; s. c. 42 S. W. Rep. 971.

if the accident were due to the "Croker v. Pusey Ac. Co., 3 Pen.

threads having been imperfectly (Del.) 1; s. c. 50 Atl. Rep. 61.

cut, though the superintendent su- " Texas Ac. R. Co. v. Bingle,

pervised the designing of the supra.

work; since such negligence was "Croker v. Pusey Ac. Co., supra.
the fault of the workman in the


Digitized by LjOOQLC


fairly stated, it is that a master who buys machinery, tools, and ap-
pliances from a reputable maker, and who also uses reasonable care in
inspecting and setting them up, and in putting them into use or opera-
tion, is not liable to an employ^ for injury resulting from the negli-
gence of the maker in using improper materials or in doing the work in
an improper manner. 16 So stated; the doctrine is entirely consistent
with the principle which assigns the duty of the master of exercising
reasonable care in these particulars, to that class of primary, absolute,
and unassignable duties which the master cannot cast off. The fact
that he purchases the machine, tool, or appliance from a reputable
manufacturer does not excuse his own negligence in inspecting it, in
testing it, or in setting it up, but is a circumstance entering into the
general ingredient of evidence speaking on the question whether or
not he has exercised reasonable care in the premises. The purchase of
the machine, tool, or appliance from a reputable maker does not
alone excuse him. For instance, where the injury was caused by the
bursting of a check-valve in an air-hoist, the defendant was not ex-
cused from liability on the ground that it had discharged its duty to
the plaintiff by furnishing a valve made by a reputable manufacturer,
in the absence of a showing that the valve purchased was adapted to
the use to which it was put. 17 A sound application of this doctrine
was to hold that an employer is not liable for an injury to an employ6
caused by a defect in an eyebolt purchased from a reputable manu-
facturer, where the defect could not be detected by an external ex-
amination, and where, if the eyebolt had been in good condition, it
would safely have supported the strain. 18 A statement more indulgent
to the master is to say that an employer who is not a boilermaker or
an engineer, and who, in the exercise of business prudence, making
a selection at the suggestion of those who use boilers, or on the recom-
mendation of experts, gets an unsafe boiler, yet one in ordinary use,
is not answerable for the consequences to an employe injured thereby. 10

"Reynolds v. Merchants' Woolen where it might be subjected to a

Co., 168 Mass. 501; s. c. 47 N. E. pressure of 2,700 to 2,800 pounds).

Rep. 406 (cylinder of dustlng-ma- . u Doyle v. White, 9 App. Dlv.

chine burst through presence of (N. Y.) 521; s. c. 41 N. Y. Supp.

blow-holes in the iron, not capable 628; 75 N. Y. St. Rep. 628; a«Tg

of being detected by inspection). s. c. 14 Misc. (N. Y.) 417; 35 N. Y.

"Slattery v. Walker Ac. Man. Co., Supp. 760; 70 N. Y. St. Rep. 417;

179 Mass. 307; s. c. 60 N. B. Rep. s. c. aff'd, 159 N. Y. 548 (mem.);

782 (maker of a hoist had used a 54 N. E. Rep. 1090.

half-inch valve in constructing ma* "Service v. Shoneman, 196 Pa.

chine, but defendant substituted St. 63; s. c. 46 Atl. Rep. 292 (steam

for it a three-quarter inch valve was escaping at the edge of a tri-

guaranteed by its maker to stand angular piece of iron covering

a pressure of 300 to 400 pounds, three boiler-tubes, held by a nut in

while defendant used it in a place' the center, and on the engineer's


Digitized by LjOOQLC

4 Thomp. Neg.] duties and liabilities of the master.

But this statement, in so far as it absolves the master from making
a suitable inspection and suitable test by means of a competent en-
gineer (the master himself being incompetent), seems to be unsound.
There are decisions which strangely misapply this "reputable manu-
facturer" doctrine, and some of them seem to proceed in ignorance
both of law and of justice. One of them holds that an employ^ of
a contractor for the construction of a building cannot recover from his
employer for an injury caused by the giving way of a floor in such
building, negligently constructed by a person of skill and experience,
under an independent contract with the contractor. 20 Another one
holds with more reason that a master is not chargeable with negli-
gence because of the breaking of an appliance of the usual size and
material, but improperly welded, where the appliance was manufac-
tured by a responsible concern, from which the master purchased it,
with others, and it was put in position by a fellow servant, and no
weakness was apparent to external observation. 21 In another case it
was held that the owner of a track hired for use* in a procession is
not under an implied liability to his employ6 whom he sends to drive
it, for defects in a superstructure built upon the truck by the hirer,
where the driver knew who built it and had no reason to believe that
his employer had taken any part in its erection or supervision. 22

§ 3991. Ordinary Use as a Test of the Suitableness of a Machine
or Appliance. — Some of the courts content themselves with holding
that in discharging his duty of supplying machinery, tools and appli-
ances to his servants which are reasonably safe for the purposes in-
tended, the master discharges his duty when he supplies such as are
in common or general use. 28

attempting to tighten the nut the eyebolt holding a span-wire broke,

plate turned with the nut, enlarg- jarring the pole and throwing the

ing the aperture and scalding de- plaintiff to the ground),

ceased). n Hardy v. Shedden Co., 78 Fed.

"Wittenberg v. Friederich, 8 Rep. 610; s. c. 47 U. S. App. 362;
App. Div. (N. Y.) 433; & c. 40 N. 24 C. C. A. 261.
Y. Supp. 895; 75 N. Y. St. Rep. 292 * Ante, § 3769; post, § 3993; Chi-
(hod-carrier employed by defend- cago Ac. R. Co. v. Lonergan, 118
ant, Injured by fall of a floor con- 111. 41; s. c. 7 N. E. Rep. 55 (fall-
structed by his subcontractor, ure to block turnout) ; Shadford v.
which answered the purpose of a Ann Arbor St. R. Co., Ill Mich,
staging for the use of the ma- 390; s. c. 69 N. W. Rep. C61 (corn-
sons, also in defendant's employ), pany used a hand-vise, such as was

n Doyle v. White, 9 App. Div. in common use in constructing

(N. Y.) 521; 8. c. 41 N. Y. Supp. curve in a trolley-wire — not defect-

628; 75 N. Y. St. Rep. 628; aff'g s. ive, but failed to hold— not negli-

c. 14 Misc. (N. Y.) 417; 35 N. Y. gent in failing to use device called

Supp. 760; 70 N. Y. St. Rep. 417; a "come along"); Schroeder v.

s. c. aff'd, 159 N. Y. 548 (mem.); Michigan Car Co., 56 Mich. 132

54 N. E. Rep. 1090 (while plaintiff (planlng-machine manufactured by

was working on iron trolley-pole an prominent and reputable house,


Digitized by LjOOQLC


§ 3992. Vaster Bound to a Care in Proportion to the Danger to
be Avoided. — In the performance of his duty of seeing that the ma-
chinery, tools and appliances which his servants are required to use
are reasonably safe, having regard to the purposes intended, the care
which the law demands of the master must, as in other case6, 24 be a
care in proportion to the danger to be avoided. 26

Master Not Bound to Provide the Safest and Best Ma-
chinery, but Only Such as is in Common Use. — The master is not un-
der an obligation, under all circumstances, to make use of the best
and safest known appliances and instruments; nor is he responsible
for a failure to discard one which is not of the safest possible kind
which can be secured, and to supply something in its place which may
be safer ;" nor is he required to furnish, under all circumstances, and

and used all over the country —
cos-wheels, unguarded); Omaha
Bottling Co. v. Theiler, 59 Neb. 257;
a. c 80 N. W. Rep. 821 (failure to
usa screens to protect workmen fill-
ing bottles with carbonated liquids
under high pressure) ; Slsco v. Le-
high Ac. R. Co., 145 N. Y. 296; s. c.
39 N. E. Rep. 958; rev'g s. c. 75 Hun
(N. Y.) 582 (mail-crane with sta-
tionary arm, such as was in com-
mon use, and placed the ordinary
distance from the track); Nutt v.
Southern Pac. Co., 25 Or. 291; s.
c 35 Pac Rep. 653 (sufficient if
master furnishes reasonably safe
and suitable appliances — need not
furnish appliances of a particular
kind); Titus v. Bradford Ac. R. Co.,
136 Pa. St. 618; s. c. 20 Atl. Rep.
517 (transporting broad-gauge car
body on narrow-gauge truck, sup-
porting blocks being attached to
the bolsters of the truck by tele-
graph-wire, which worked loose
and let car tip over — ordinary
method on narrow-gauge roads — no
recovery) ; Higgins v. Fanning, 195
Pa. St. 599; s. c. 46 Atl. Rep. 102;
Mississippi River Logging Co. v.
Schneider, 34 U. S. App. 743; s. c.
74 Fed. Rep. 195; 20 C. C. A. 390,
and cases cited (failure to protect
saw so that board could not come
in contact with it by accident) ;
Washington Ac. R. Co. v. McDade,
135 U. S. 554; s. c. 34 L. ed. 235
(failed to have loose pulley and
shifter to shift belt to and from
fixed pulley — employ6 injured while*
doing it by hand — recovery al-
lowed). It has been held that the

absence of a guard on a mangle
was not a defect where there was
no evidence to show that a guard
would have added to its safety, or
that guards were in ordinary use
on such machines at the time of
the accident. Whatever is accord-
ing to the general, usual, and or-
dinary course adopted by those in '
the same business, is reasonably
safe within the meaning of the law.
The test is negligence, and negli-
gence cannot be imputed from the
employment of machinery in gen-
eral use: Higgins v. Fanning, 195
Pa. St. 599; s. c. 46 Atl. Rep. 102.

94 Vol. I, § 25; ante, § 3772.

"Croker v. Pusey &c. Co., 3 Pen.
(Del.) 1; s. c. 50 Atl. Rep. 61;
Lawrence v. Hagemeyer, 93 Ky.
591; s. c. 20 S. W. Rep. 704; Covey
v. Hannibal Ac. R. Co., 86 Mo. 635;
Bowen v. Chicago Ac. R. Co., 95
Mo. 268; s. c. 8 S. W. Rep. 230;
Friel v. Citizens' R. Co., 115 Mo.
503; s. c. 22 S. W. Rep. 498; Bal-
lard v. Hitchcock Man. Co., 51 Hun
(N. Y.) 188; B.C.4N. Y. Supp. 940;
Harroun v. Brush Electric Light
Co., 12 App. Div. (N. Y.) 126; s. c.
42 N. Y. Supp. 716; Disano v. New
England Steam Brick Co., 20 R. I.
452; s. c. 40 Atl. Rep. 7; Interna-
tional Ac. R. Co. v. Doyle, 49 Tex.

"Western Ac. R. Co. v. Bishop,
50 Ga. 465; Chicago 6c. R. Co. v.
Smith, 18 111. App. 119; Eckhart Ac.
Milling Co. v. Schaefer,. 101 111.
App. 500 (cannot be required to
adopt any particular method of con-
struction, or any particular contri-


Digitized by


4 Thomp. Neg.] duties and Liabilities of the master.

without regard to their cost and his ability to pay for them, the new-
est and best kind of implements which may be in use in his line of
business ; 27 nor is he required, as matter of law, to provide machinery
of any particular description; 28 but he discharges his duty to his
servant when he provides those which are in common and general
use in his business, 29 which are considered safe by other employers

vance or device, in order to be in
the exercise of ordinary care);
Louisville Ac. R. Co. v. Orr, 84 Ind.
50; Pennsylvania Co. v. Whitcomb,
111 Ind. 212; s. c. 9 West. Rep.
823; 12 N. E. Rep. 380; Atchison
Ac. R. Co. v. McKee, 37 Kan. 592;
8. c. 15 Pac. Rep. 484; Wonder v.
Baltimore &c. R. Co., 32 Md. Ill;
Jones v. Granite Mills, 126
Mass. 84; s. c. 7 Rep. 146; Fort
Wayne &c. R. Co. v. Gildersleeve,
33 Mich. 133 [followed in Botsford
v. Michigan &c. R. Co., 33 Mich.
256]; Lyttle v. Chicago &c. R. Co.,
84 Mich. 289; s. c. 47 N. W. Rep.
571; Friel v. Citizens' R. Co., 115
Mo. 503; s. c. 22 S. W. Rep. 498;
Piper v. New York &c. R. Co., 1
Thomp. & C. (N. Y.) 290; s. c. aff'd,
56 N. Y. 630; Salters v. Delaware
Ac. Canal Co., 3 Hun (N. Y.) 338;
Thorn v. New York City Ice Co., 46
Hun (N. Y.) 497; s. c. 11 N. Y. St.
Rep. 845; Hickey v. Taaffe, 105 N.
Y. 26; s. c. 12 N. E. Rep. 286; Stack
v. Patterson, 6 Phila. (Pa.) 225.

* Mackey v. Baltimore &c. R. Co.,
19 D. C. 282; s. c. 18 Wash. L. Rep.
767; Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Blevins,
46 Kan. 370; s. c. 26 Pac. Rep. 687;
Conway v. Hannibal &c. R. Co., 24
Mo. App. 235; Kern v. De Castro
&c. Co., 125 N. Y. 50; s. c. 34 N.
Y. St. Rep. 363; 25 N. E. Rep. 1071;
Dingley v. Star Knitting Co., 58
Hun (N. Y.) 605 (mem.); s. c. 34
N. Y. St. Rep. 989; 12 N. Y. Supp.
31; s. c. aff'd, 134 N. Y. 552; 32 N.
E. Rep 35; Eldridge v. Atlas S. S.
Co., 58 Hun (N. Y.) 96; s. c. 33 N.
Y. St. Rep. 1016; 11 N. Y. Supp.
468; s. c. aff'd, 134 N. Y. 187; 32 N.
E. Rep. 66; Philadelphia &c. R. Co.
v. Keenan. 103 Pa. St. 124; Titus v.
Bradford Ac. Co., 136 Pa. St. 618; s.
c. 26 W. N. C. (Pa.) 472; 21 Pittsr L.
J. (N. S.) 165; 47 Phila. Leg. Int.
496; 20 Atl. Rep. 517; 8 Lane. L.
Rev. (Pa.) 93; Augerstein v. Jones,
139 Pa. St. 183; s. c. 27 W. N. C.
(Pa.) 169; 21 Pitts. L. J. (N. S.)

253; 21 Atl. Rep. 24; Bemisch v.
Roberts, 143 Pa. St. 1; s. c. 28 W.
N. C. (Pa.) 169; 22 Pitts. L. J. (N.
S.) 1; 48 Phila. Leg. Int. 305; 21
Atl. Rep. 998; East Tennessee Ac.
R. Co. v. Aiken, 89 Tenn. 245; s. c.
14 S. W. Rep. 1082; Sweet v. Ohio
Coal Co., 78 Wis. 127; s. c. 9 L. R.
A. 861; 47 N. W. Rep. 182; The
Maharajah, 40 Fed. Rep. 784.

"Eckhart Ac. Milling Co. v.
Schaefer, iOl 111. App. 500 (cannot
be required to* adopt any particular
method of construction, or any
particular contrivance or device, in
order to be in the exercise of or-
dinary care) ; Wood v. Heiges, 83
Md. 257; s. c. 34 Atl. Rep. 872.

» Ante, §§ 3769, 3991; Chicago
Ac. R. Co. v. Lonergan, 118 111. 41;
s. c 7 N. E. Rep. 55; Shadford v.
Ann Arbor St. R. Co., Ill Mich.
390; s. c. 3 Det. Leg. N. 712; 6 Am.
A Eng. R. Cas. (N. S.) 584; 69 N. W.
Rep. 661 (discharges his duty If he
furnishes appliances which are in
common and general use through-
out the country in the same or sim-
ilar lines of work); Omaha Bot-
tling Co. v;' Theiler, 59 Neb. 257;
s. c. 80 N. W. Rep. 821; Sisco v.
Lehigh Ac. R. Co., 145 N. Y. 296;
s. c. 39 N. E. Rep 958; Llnkitus v.
Butler Colliery, 7 Kulp (Pa.) 73;
Delaware River Iron Ac. Works v.
Nuttall, 119 Pa. St 149; s. c. 13
Atl. Rep. 65; 21 W. N. C. (Pa.)
100; authorities cited in Allison
Ac. Co. v. McCormick, 118 Pa. St.
519; s. c. 12 Atl. Rep. 273; 20 W.
N. C. (Pa.) 571; Titus v. Bradford
Ac. Co., 136 Pa. St. 618; s. c. 20
Atl. Rep. 517; Reese v. Hershey,
163 Pa. St. 253; s. c. 29 Atl. Rep.
907; 11 Lane. L. Rev. (Pa.) 300;
rev'g s. c. 10 Lane. L. Rev. (Pa.)

Online LibrarySeymour Dwight ThompsonCommentaries on the law of negligence in all relations → online text (page 35 of 165)