Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-02-23
COURT DECISIONS.
DlcESTED BY w. B. MARTIN.
Exclusively for virgin,an-Pilot,
Notes Of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are Of Interest TO
Our People.
r. COTTON Mills v. GREEN.

r COTTON MILLS ". GREEN.
Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia
February l, 1900.
A MASTER MUST USE ORDINARY
CARE TO FURNISH SAFE APPII-
ANCES. HE is NOT BOUND TO
USE THE NEWEST AND BEST APP
pLIANCES.
A SERVANT IS GUILTY OF CON-
TRtBUTORY NEGLIGENCE WHO
CONTINUES TO USE MACHINERY
WITH DEFECTS WHICH ARE
OBVIOUS AND KNOWN TO HIM,
WITHOUT INFORMING THE MAS
TER.
This was an action to recover dam
ages for an injury received by PLAINTIFF
while an employee in the cotton mills
or defendant company. The negligence
complained of the failure of the COM
pany TO furnish safe and suitable ma
chinery In not providing q safe and
modern contrivance TO keep a door of
one OF the machines in it's place. This
door fell out and plaintiff was hurt.
There was n judgment for plaintiff
IN the lower court and the defendant
appealed
The court says:
The injury sustained by the plaintiff
appears to have been the result of
pure accident. the record furnished no
explanation of its cause. The plaintiff
contents himself by saying that 1t was
brought about through no fault OF his
ana from the lack of some other and
better device for fastening the door In
us place. The established rule is that
the master must exercise ordinary care
mat 49, such care as reasonable and
prudent men use under like circum-
stances, In providing reasonably SUE
and suitable appliances and instrument
talitics for the work to be done. All
the cases agree that the master is not
bound to Use the newest and best APP
pliances. Absolute safety is not at
tnlnable, and employers are not in
surers of their employees. They are
liable for the consequences, not OF dan
ger. but of negligence.
In the case at bar the defendant APP
pears TO have discharged its full duty
to the plaintiff In the matter of furnish
ing reasonably safe appliances for the
work to be done. 1t was not 4 question
of whether the defendants machine
was as new as some other, or whether
the door thereto was rs securely fast
cned as 1t would have been IL some
other patent had been used, but
whether the appliances used were
reasonably safe for the purposes, for
which they were employed. The evil
dence shows that the master did all in
this regard that the srrictest inter
probation of the rule could require.
That the appliances in question were
reasonably safe would seem to be clear
from the fact that. thought the ma
chine I'm question had been in use for
n number of years, yet no accident like
that now under consideration ever oc-
CURED before.
If, however. the fastening to the door
nd Go
plaintiff could not recover because the
defect relied on was open. obvious, and
rs well known to the plaintiff as it
could possibly have been TO the de-
PENDANT. 1t appears that the plaintiff
had taken these doors off several times
to clean cotton out of the cylinders, and
seen the grinder take them off re-
pcated to grind the cards. His duty
required him to wipe off these doors,
upon which the fastening was con-
spicuous, constantly during each day,
and he says that he understood how
they were fastened during the entire
time of his service, and yet he never
oncehnted or suggested to anyone that
the fastening was defective or insecure,
or that he objected to his work for that
or any other reason; on the contrary,
in about three weeks when his hand
had recovered, he returned to the same
work and continued In the employ
IL
lowing December QS9S) without any
change having been made in ttlc-rrfttie-
of fastening the door and without sug-
costing that any such change was nee
essary.
To hold the defendant liable under
the circumstances disclosed by this
record would be to make the master
without fault on his part, an insurer of
his employee against every accident
that might occur during his employ
ment. Reversed.
TALTAFERRO v. w. U. TEL. co.
Court of appeals of Kentucky January
4, 1900
"A PARTY IS ENTITLED TO NONII-
NAL DAMAGES FOR THE FAIL
URE OF A TELEGRAPH COM
PANY TO DELIVER a MESSAGE,
ALTHOUGH NO ACTUAL DAM
AGES ARE SHOWN.
This was an action against the West
ern Union Telegraph Company for
damages for failure to deliver a tele-
gram sent by him. He paid 40 cents
for sending the telegram but it was not
delivered.
The lower court sustained demur-
rer to the petition and plaintiff ap-
pealed.
The court after discussing another
question raised in the case says:
But 1t does not follow that the de-
murrer should dave been sustained.
The Court of Appeals of Illinois, in a
similar case. says: "On the averments
of the declaration, the plaintiff was
entitled to recover nominal damages.
at least, including the loss Of the price
of the telegram The demurrer should
have been overruled". To this extent.
at ieact, the petition stated a cause OF
action. If appellant sustained any loss