Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1903-12-29
CUMBERLAND COUNTY.

Coleman Welch VS.. Bath Iron Works.
Rescript by Wiswell, G. ].
An employer of laborerS may, when
necessary for the prosecution of his
work, use agencies and appliances
which are particularly dangerous to
the lives and limbs of those who use
them, provided precautions can be and
are taken to guard against such dan
gers. so that by the employment of
these precautions the necessary and
inherent dangers are reduced to a con-
dition of reasonable safety, and I'M
necessary dangers can be avoided. I'm
der these circumstances employers are
required to exercise great care because
of the corresponding great danger to
those who are exposed.
And the additional duty is imposed
upon an employer, who finds it neces-
tary to adopt the use of particularly
hazardous agencies and appliances, of
giving full information to his servant,
who does not already have that ilr-
formation, of the particular dangers
arising from the use of such extraordi-
nary hazardous agencies, and sufficient
instructions in relation thereto, to en-
whether or not he will accept the dan
gerous employment, and. if he does,
that he may know how to avoid them
by the exercise of due care upon his
part This doctrine is based upon the
preliminary one that a servant who
enters into the employment of another
only assumes the risk of such dangers
as are ordinarily incident to the en-
ployment, and such unnecessary dam
gers as he knows of and appreciates.
The doctrine of assumption of risk has
no application to dangers which are
not and should not be contemplated by
the servant, and certainly does not APP
ply when there is an extraordinary
risk of which the servant has no
knowledge or warning. This duty of
giving notice to a servant is one that
cannot be delegated by the master to
another so as to escape liability if the
notice is not given.
The plaintiff was employed as a
common laborer in making excavations
in the frozen ground for the purpose
Of laying the foundations for a new
building. Dynamite was used to IA
cilitate the work. The plaintiff knew
that dynamite was being used, and had
a general knowledge of it's powerful
explosive character, but he had no in
formation in regard to any particular
dangers of this explosive or of any
means to be adopted to avoid them,
and was not aware and had no reason
to apprehend that any dynamite was
in fact left, or was liable TO be left,
uneXploded No instructions were
given him as to the care to be OBJ
served by him, in his work of remov-
ing the pieces of frozen earth to see
that none of the dynamite had been
left uneXploded
Three was evidence tending to show
that when o number of charges of
dynamite, placed in different holes, are
attempted to be all fired by fusse at
the same time, there is liability that
some OF these charges, for various rea-
sons, Will not always explode and that
this is not merely a remote possibility
of so unusual an occurrence as not to
be reasonably anticipated but some
thing so liable to occur and so we'll
known to those having experience in
the use of dynamite, that care must be
taken after every explosion to see that
none of the charges We're left unex-
ploded, and that this was especially
necessary in view of the great danger
that a workman might strike one of
the uneXploded pieces with his pickaxe
or shovel. There was also evidence
tending to show that there were other
peculiar dangers arising from the use
of dynamite in this manner
On the morning after an explosion
of dynamite the day before, used in the
manner above described, the plaintiff
was directed by the foreman in charge
of the crew to go to work with his
pick and shovel removing the earth