Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1905-12-19
! Important Decisions{


Plaintiff. an employe of defendant,
was instructed to repair one OF de-
PENDANTS ovens and reported to b.
who had charge Of the oven. who
showed plaintiff what to do. After
plaintiff had been working in the oven
for twenty-five minutes he asked b. to
turn on the hose, as the oven was too
hot. The pumps were not working
and B. turned on the blower. used to
cool the oven, which threw ashes and
cinders in plaintiffs eyes.
In an action for damages held:
That plaintiff and b. were fellow SER
ants, and in turning on the blower b.
had not acted for the master or by
virtue of any power delegated to him,
and defendant was not liable for the
injury. The court in rendering the
opinion said: 1.-THE true principle gov
erning the cases is that If the master
can not delegate the authority to per-
form the act, he Is liable regardless
of the rank of his employee. If, how
ever, he may delegate the power to per-
form the act. he has performed his full
duty to his employee when he has used
due care to employ competent ass1s-
tants regardless of their rank. ana 10
furnish a safe place ard suitable ap-
pliances. Superiority of position Is
not the test.
Page VS.. Esttle Creek Pure Food
Co, Ltd, y. l.. N. Vol. ~. 615.
POISON IVY.
Plaintiff was injured in a railroad
wreck. and to avoid the danger OF FUR
Their injury from another train which
she had been told was approaching, left
the train and went to the side OF the
track where she was poisoned by pois-
on iyy. In an action for damages for
such poisoning 1t was held that she
could recover from the railroad COM
many The court said: 1--WE have
heen cited to no authority directly IN
point. and, if there is none, the prln-
ciple is sound and this case VIII al
ford the precedent"
Estes VS.. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. 30 >.
w. Rep. 629 ONO App
CY-M1DDLEMEN.
Plaintiff approached defendant with
proposition to trade defendants
property for property OF O., VINO hao
employed plaintiff to make the trade.
Plaintiff did not disclose to defendan-
that he expected a commission from =
Held, that in view of the fact that the
plaintiff had not disclosed that he ex-
nected commission from c, he could
only recover upon showing that ne
occupied the position Of middleman.
The court held: That plaintiffs en-
ployment was not that Of a middle
man. but as agent for c. in the sale OF
the property and therefore he could
not recover commission from the de-
PENDANT.
Pinch VS. Morford.
d. l.. N. Vol. 10, 637 (Mich. Nov.
1869
INJURY.
Plaintiff, railroad employee. on OBJ
serving a boy standing on the track,
with his back to rapidly approach
ing train, which had failed to give the
usual signal, rushed ON the track and
saved the boy, but was himself Killed.
finding that the employe had acted
with due care under the circumstances,
were justified. The court said: we
hold that it is not only lawful but
laudable act to attempr to save human
life when it Is in great peril. and IN
sudden emergency, and in such cases
the courts will not require the person
to stop and hesitate and weigh pro-
liabilities until it is too late to make
rescue.
Ridley VS.. Mobile, etc. Ry. Co. sc S.
w. Rep. COG. (Tenn)