The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-10-24
THE RISK ASSUMED BY EMPLOYEES.
by Eaton)


therefor. Yes the court held that there
was no consideration or cause for the
release. and consequently that 4 was void.
The court added. I'VE do ros intimate
that II the railroad company had given
some Kind az consideration Il would have
been valid IL might even then be urged
that public policy feFoids the enactment
OF suca contracts" And this seems 10
be the more general opinion.
An employee assumes thu cisk attending
bis employment BY contract The law
declares he knows what he IA doing. IL
Is true he does not say a word about
the risk bar the law says this for him.
The immunity Of the master" says the
supreme court 81 New Jersey rests un-
on the contract of hiring and not upon
the absence or presence Of negligence in
either party. The master SAYS to tho
servant: you understand fully the ma
ture OF the employment and the danger
attending IL; win you enter upon itg' The
servant says: 4 accept IT, And the law
Implies that he accepts Il with all the
the magnitude OF the dangerss
An enploye must use ordinary care 20
avoid injuries 30 himself "He Is under
as great obligations so the supreme
court OF Indiana has remarked. to pro-
vide for his own safety from such dam
gers as are known 20 him. or discoveranle
by the exercise OF ordinary care on his
part as the master is to provide Il for
him" In a case arising from an injury
TO person working in a sawmill the
court said that he was under no obhga-
go through the mill first and make HIM
self familiar with each piece of machin-
cry and the danger he might incur by
coming In contact with II. Ii was SUM-
ctent for him when entering upon the
active discharge of the duties assigned
70 him to ascertain what he was expect-
ed 10 do and the dangers directly con-
nected Herewith, and he had right 10
assume that in the performance of that
particular DUTY reasonable facilities
therefor would he afforded him without
or unexpected dangers. Such ~ IN. sen
eral rule. often repeated with slight var4-
atoms as the particular case seemed TO
require. II Is quite impossible TO state
this duty or requirements Of employees In
precise words, for the situation III 30
varying. That he must exercise ordinary
care in executing his employment Is
what RssEs Are Assumed.
IL an employe Is doing hazardous work
he Is required 10 use the utmost caution
70 avoid danger. and II he does not and
Is injured he has no right to recover
anything from his employer The hazard
or working In mine Is greater than
that Of working on farm or IN a cotton
factory An employee therefore assumes
the hazard Of the ordinary perils attend
Ing hts employment, whatever they may
be- Says Mr.. Justice Sherwood OF tho
supreme court % Missouri: Whatever
hazards are concomitant OF the employ
mcnt the employe assumes necessarily
when engaging In thss performances OF tho
duties. pertaining thereto"
legal author whose words have been
adopted by the supreme court az Mia
sourf thus states the duty ~ an employee
while engaged IN his work, IA II ha
duty to 20 about his work with his eyes
open. He may not wait 10 be told. hut
must act. lie must take ordinary care
TO learn the dangers which are likely 10
bcset him n the service Y the master
or warning II " his duty ~ read them
He must not go hiindiy and hcediesely
to his work when there IL danger lilo
must inform himself This IA The law
everywhere. The servant n held bv his
contract OF hiring % assume the risk ~
injury from tho ordinary dangers ~ the
employment that IL TO say from such
dangers as arc known 20 him or dis
coyerabie by the exercise ~ ordinary caro-
on HIS part He has. therefore. no risht
81 action IN general against hts master
for An injury Detailing him from such
cause. Hts right 20 recover win depend
snn r ns n ~ anew u |. n wan nna Az
ieEai OBLIGATION TO know 81 H. Il was
a rari Of his contract and he cannot IN
general recover"
This principle has been carried very far
Thus when parsons have been Injured AZ
work on a railroad from he iac6 ~ n
nasfnan ta giva notice of the cnnalus "
trains, the courts have after declared
that unless there wae Rsntute NV re-.
unirink a company 20 haze one thay
would not hold this % be one Of iis d..
ties An accident might he prevented II
a f'asman were employed bot ~ men en-
Fagea IN labor knowing there we're no
fsagmen. thew assumed ihe rlrk
Another auplirstiGn 81 the same prin-
eipie may be made - an injury hap
peu.ng from exposed machinery. " u
were bsNed the Injury wculd not have
happened bur the Using - v IN sn az
posed ruanneF o. nos regarded ~ Tho law
as ncEiEnnne II those who were opefmt.
iBR Il kneM ct ought ~ have known
~ the danger Thus IN cf4ofsflft ~. New
fieifofa cor68He Company Mr. Justics
Hoar remarked that 4 csa'is mol he
dhnffeJ "fhN " o. The ierel right -
every uefaeu ta carry ~ business nliirh
d DANGEROUS sttfrr 81 NseN og ~ bio
fnamrsf ~ sawdMtiG@ 81 " n ~ rect uw.
hwfpi ard infnrfsfH# #tfk no fiRhh ~
other rfFH3nE Tea Naeh ra#s ~
rersrri & in3ufed issfY cannes stR 80
a feet fhHt the ssnuiaTfr h reHiisant ~
nhf rrHfestfaR emuinEee ffssn danger ~
qua riding 81 though tNs fYiitnee may
clearly eAaM thsi the aFef1ent Wna4ld nof
hsvn Naf}seu.d haa u hwen wsgaFfef, fnr
fha rraeo ihHs ihg DANGER h0vFN~r
great " Il wss knewn 90 might have
beer known hy nfdinHrv observation -
asHUYnst ~ tha ,uriNFe