The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-11-14
Aw LESSONS.
EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEE
BY ALBERT q. soLLKs, IL D.

As we have seen. an employer must use
ordinary care In employing his servants
and provide them with suitable or proper
tools. machinery. places for work. assist
ance and instruction or regulations Hav-
ing done this. they assume the ordinary
risks Of their employment.
Use of Newest or Safest Machinery.
What is ordinary care IS a question of
fact. and therefore can be fully answered
only whenever a case happens. Yet some
partial answers have been given to the
question that are worth considering. For
example. an employer is not required 10
use the newest or safest machinery. SAYS
the supreme court of Pennsylvania: Some
employments are essentially hazardous.
and It by no means follows that an en-
ployer is liable because particular acci-
dent might have been prevented BY some
special device or precaution not in COM
mon use" The case In which this princi-
pie was applied grew out OF an accident
from using broad gauge cars on a narrow
gauge track. IT was proved that the
railroad company often drew such cars on
Its track. though they we're not as safe
as wider ones. But the court declared
that this was a proper business: that the
company was not limited. when operating
its road to cars of the safest kind; It
could use others less safe II 1t desired.
There was. however. n rule or limit be-
yond which II could not go without be-
coming negligent. and what was that?
The ordinary usage of business" This
Is the test that must be applied. mo
man." said the court. lis held to higher
degree OF skill than the fair average OF
hi trade or profession, and the standard
OF due care Is the conduct OF the average
prudent man." There may be better
or less dangerous way. 80 the court added.
but no Jury can Ne permitted to say that
to use the usual and ordinary way. COM
monty adopted by those in the same busi-
The question stiil remains to be decided
In every case, was the machine. appliance,
car or other thing used that caused the
accident. In common use? II so. the en-
ployer has complied with the law. and
therefore Is not regare-> as negligent
when an accident has happened from using
1t.
when = Defective Appliance May Ne
Used.
positively defective when an employee be-
!gins to use It. and vet his employer may
not be regarded as negligent In having II
used II the employe knew or had reason
to know OF its true condition. This prin-
ciple Is founded on several reasons. FIRST
an employer has the right to use his own
law. II he erects 4 mill he is not obliged
when ne pleases. 10. too. II the machin-
cry becomes old. out Of date. and even
ta.se II out and put in new: he can con-
tinue to use It II he be 30 minded. the
| ea11tial thing for him to do y to b. as
s1Ssd dssssr efonsSt s. 1 sisss SnS use sns
\ II, ~ the courts say. they 40 know. OF
ought by using ordinary precaution Or
| be used without transferring the new or
| greater risk to the employer
! Second, the courts do not consider that
an employee has done nothing contrary 10
|
| ate machine that IL defective. No deceit
! has been practiced on him. and he cannot
blame his employer. He understands the
nature OF the risk quite as well as his
foreman or any one else, lie acts with
his eyes wide open: and the law gives
him the fullest liberty. to do so. Further
more. he would doubtless complain IL the
law were otherwise and he were forbidden
| to use only appliances or machines OF q
prescribed make or pattern.
Danger of usinw . Defective ApDlt-
ance.
Yet all can see the danger OF an abuse
Q, this principle ana no doubt 4
that ought not 70 be taken by them: em-
pioyers use machinery that ought to be
taken out and used for old iron. Some
countries and states have statutes re-
lating to this subject: inspectors TO visit
mills and insist on the use 81 safe sp-
| plisnces. the boxing Of machinery. the
covering OF belts. SO as to prevent acci-
| dents. Such regulations and inspection
| have good purpose. but where they do
not exist let us repeat that employers
and employees may make contracts for
using almost any kind of appliances and
| machinery, the nature of which IN known
to them, without violating the law, The
only limit il the use OF machine or APP
piance that would be regarded ~ a
reckless exposure OF life, a contract 20
| do this would he void, and ~ either party
Were so inclined he could decline to full
| oil *.
The Rule HeauirinE the Use Of safe
Appliances May BE Set Aside.