The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-11-21
Notifying Employers Of Unusual Dangers.



As no longer binding and the risk thsre-
fore ef working with the INC frretent
hsirer as hts own Tho court rentr e .
WAS sustained ~ shc csurs ~ review
Another case involving this Guesti n.
arcso IN Alabama. msneg was usinx a
before the accident 20 ~ Described. the
master had hNen uos ncd that the fuse
was bad and he te.d the rnircr &c ~. ne
hes; he could With What he had until hs
could set either rhe mtncr continued 20
work. and six DAYS sftv~ the masters
promise he chArvpa a hole with a, nsms'~
plosson ought q have hapr<nd in tive or
three minutes. the fniner waited twenty
minutes and then returned. Al thst mo-
meut tho mine exptcded and the Miner
was Killed. The snployvs souxas to
shieid himself behind this rule - lsw
that the miner had remained At his wofk
rloyer had promised TO ~appls him with
a proper fuse. lie asked the court to
charge the Jury that tf they should con-
cluce FROM the evidence that the miner
continued at hts work beyond reason
ahie time after the PROMISE 20 furnish the
fuse was given. his wife could not receiver
anything frun The employer. The taass
ana i' the supreme cear, ' saia that tho r..
gaess was proper ono and ought 20 have
been given.
Risks That Cannot Ne knswfaasy
rakea.
The court Of review considered another
principle thar ungnt 70 he clearly un<i~r~
stood. III the defect or new danger " =
very grave sns. the cnpioys ought "a quit
az once. and n he should remain. relying
on bis employers promise to remove n.
the RISK y neveftheae~~ his e~n. and = In
Jared he can lock to no une for redress.
The rule has been thus stated ny the su-
preme court Of Indiana. When = new dan
ser has been ds.ecs , = y = not kreat
10 remove Y. be mist rely en- the promise.
hut when the danger IL great and itnMr4
diate and u o. such a nature thar a rru.
dent man woaic not voluntarily incur t."
a PROMISE 10 remove II does not Justify an
employe In remaining ~ his post When
the line OF danger. direct and certain, -
reached. there the Citizen must oter, ard
he cannot pass IT. even upcn the faith AZ
another.s promise. n 90 pass n requires .
hazard that no prudent man would In
cur.
The supreme court 81 Indiana also re-
marks THAI This rule does NOT prevail I'm
all the states Some ~ the easr~ ~ fssr-
Their and assert that the promise 81 the
employer sxenrfates the employee entirely.
even though tho continuance In the scr-
vice II known 70 him "a he constantly ana
Immediately dAnesr0us"
A. E~psey~v uss Tswe - usvssss-
gate After ns~~tvtss Notice.
Again. when an employer has been mott.
81 some new defect tn an appliance Or MAJ
chine he has a reasonable time 10 inveAsf-
gate the charge Or notice h~for~ acting.
lie H. net required on the complaint by =
wnrkmsa of the Incompetence OF another
TO dismiss him. cf 90 make any premise
10 dismsss him, o. 10 assume any more
risk II he "a kept urisi he has tnv~stt-
gated for himself This IL the Law, The
courts maintain that an smployes need
not act until assured that the complaint
or notice ~ true 1f the Law were other
wts~s il is maintained, employers Would
~ nut too much at the marcy az shsar
employees.
Rssks Dssssvsssa nsssrs $50 assss
usAessahsag E0Daev0~se.
II may sise ~ added THAI clear dtff~r~
an unasual risk Il discovered AFTER IL
snplsye has been TO work snd the e&s~s
In which he knows Of es existene~ tsefofe
undertaking employment. When he tnesa
~ u At the nats~t. the risk Of injury
been known By him. !. wholly his e~n.
Hot after hs has begun work. Nc may
discover a tan9et. the risk 81 which NJ
10 unwilling 10 assume aad from which
Obtaining his rxonaiss - r~moye Nj On
the ether hand. ~ we have n~rn. III tbs
master makes no rfssnise 10 hts empisys
In response 70 tse notice. snd hs ~saFks
Stunning the risk. as muse ~ thongh -
had known u In shc bswiansea
TIE Law - vssssnsa.
This. hewsvef Is nss she law " ~ the
states In rsfse Of th~fs. sirRlns@ snf
example the courts hn3a thai 90, tAT ais.
F0NerY 81 eone 9fsmt defect tina smptnys
meni ~ an ine~rapss*ms servant uf inc
breaking ~ a. machine. Y The empsats
ife IL nos required d gsis % esa.s< shs
unnenni risk III ~ eheoses w remain.
~ can 30 sa ana his mastex 10 reap@aezl-
bic faf the consequences