The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-11-14

he knew OF the horses vicious habits
she had kicked Others" said the court
and her reputation was well known 10
they We're warned TO guard against being
injured BY her. No duty WAS i'm
posed on the company TO inform him az
grooming the mare He v voi IN u'S a ass
surned the risk and continued TO expose
himself TO well-known danger" Hts en-
ployer therefore was not liable Tor tho
injury. 1t mattered not that his master
knew OF the vicious habits OF tho mare
The employee also knew. or ought TO have
known, and so be had no right to recover
ANYTHING from his employer.
IL he could recover IN such cases after
showing that he had no actual knowledge
OF the risk from which he was injured.
case OF an injury to show that he did
not know. So the law goes step further
and says before he can recover he must
there was no reason why he should have
known. The question then must always
be double one: First. did he actually
recovering anything: second. II he did
not know, ought he 10 have knownf IL
he had, then he also II cut on. Only
and ought not to have known do the
courts regard his claim with any favor.
Unusual Risks KNOWN by Employero
hut unknown ny Employes.
Again. II there are unusual risks that
are known BY an employer, but are not
reason for their knowing them, then tho
employer Il responsible for the conxe-
quence Thus workman In Massachu-
defective floor. He passed over this moor
during his daily employment and knew
that u was dccayed. but did mot know
court. speaking through ITS chief justicS.
remarked that the injured man had some
knTowledge Of the condition OF the door.
II y was sufficient TO put him on HE
guard at the time he cannot recover"
But the court also added that from the
nature and condition. OF the building and
Ing examined the parts OF the floor that
We're not exposed to hts view have beer,
aware that there was danger at the place
have known the real condition OK the
hoor was TO have examined II on the
under side, and this he was not required
The court reiterated the rule thar II \.
mas knowledge OF the danger che II
nne es In disregardine u. Il has been
over which he has TO pass In the DARK
ana " - not liehted or guarded, and ne
knows It's condition but chooses to pass
There are many empioymcnts that nr~
known TO be dangerous. and sonetirneS
business y carried on IN buildings a.
or with machinery and Implemeuts mai
are OF the same Character IN s,,rh rs 49,
tne workman takes the rtsks which ~
the h,. ~ ne incident TO the place and 10
The cases are not numerous IN which n
a afppsafea thar the employe was igncrane
py MS master. In almost All either thS
employe DID know OF the risk OF II WA
Quite obvious and would have been fO,irS1
remains NJ Il always has been IL casss !. ~
an unusual risk not known by An rn,s
pioye or which could not have besn found
on his part sAfre' sSs q 9 s diIssnos
| whore Il liable Of course in msss. X
them the question arises, Was ~ r3sSr
- no way OF ever answering this for al
cases: Each case stands by itself. the
question is one or fact.
,, 70 ih sv case s q brakeman Who was IN.
tried to show that the DEFECT was Obvious.
that he could easily hava seen Il ard
consequently a the injury US caused b.
Y was shown that he had never ssen the
brake before and that he rad but two Or
three minutes for deciding whsther he
coupling cars. 70 that In truth he had no
lime to make proper exapnsuAtion or the
brake. The Jury decided stAt he was nod
negligent and had not assumed the risk
OF using the defective brake Said the
court OF review. There IL no evidence
that he ever handled or even saw this
occasion In such circumstances II would
not be proper to yssit him with the com
sequences uf = knowledge 81 the defect
and voluntary use OF the brake notwfth-
standing such knowledge
One other case of an injury NAV he
mentioned that happened In Minnesofa
An employe was Injured by some cogs
that usually were covered. The cover
had been taken on without hts know ledge
exposing the coRs and thus creating =
new aud unusual risk. The employers
defenbe was that the employee was psgli@
gent ia not noticing the removal ~ the
cover. The jury thought otherwise. and
80 did the supreme court. The charge
given TO the Jury. which ~as approved
by the court Of review Is worth quoting.
Amy risks that ara apparent and opsn
10 the empioye. 81 that hr knows them, or,
by the exercise of ordinary care and thu
ordinary observation which men are sup
posed TO give these matters. may UNDER
stand, not only the defects, but the rtsks.
he IL presumed TO take"