The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1908-03-08
the law implies that he assumes GER

me Id" iuuplIeS IHtiI he assumes GER
tain risks:
Cd He assumes the risk of all the
ordinary dangers of the employment
An employer does not insure the lives
and limbs of his employees. In many
modern industries there are aC-i-
dents which, humanity speaking, are
inevitable 1t is not as safe to mine
coal, make steel rails or manufacture
dynamite as it is to practice law or
dig potatoes. If a man chooses one
rather than the other, the danger is
his own lockout. Furthermore, the
law takes it for granted that for the
extra risk in certain dangerous occu-
patiOns there is sufficient compensa-
ton in the greater reward stipulated
for in this same contract for hire. OF
course, it is not merely the risk of
accidents happening IN spite of every
safety precautiOn and protection, which
the employee assumes; he assumes
the risk of the work as it is ordinarily
carried on. For instance, the handle
on bucket hauling 1000 pounds of
iron out of the hold of a vessel pulls
out, letting the whole mass of iron
fall on a workman in the hold. On
this bucket, which had been used for
eighteen years, the handle was merely
clamped on; while in newer bHckets,
the handles are forged on. But, since
the plaintiff cannot show that the old
and less safe buckets are still in COM
mon use, he cannot hold his employer
liable for his injury; it is an ordinary
risk of his employment that he has
suffered from and he took the risk.
(McGeegan & Hughes, 10. Dist. 249.)
Extraordinary Risks.
CD He assumes all extraordinary
risks, as those arising from long con-
tinued Or obvious defects in machin-
cry, and even those arising from such
negligence of the employer as amounts
to a violation of statute, if he knew,
Or could reasonably have been expect
ed to have known of the danger, and
continued working (107, Pa. u. For
instance, a sevente en-yeaIeold girl,
working in a laundry, called the at
tention of a foreman to loose board
in front Of the rolls where she was
working. She said 1t interfered with
her work, but made no definite com
plant with regard to its danger, and
she went ON working there. Nothing
was done. Finally. while she was
cleaning the machine, the loose board
flew up and threw her hands between
the rolls, where they were crushed.
She could not recover because she had
assumed the risk of q condition which
she ought to have known was danger
Gus. HENDERSON vs. togSnLaSlor, y,
Dauph. 246). Or again, a man work
ing near defective crane is injured
by it's breaking. There is no evidence
that he knew of the defect, but it had
been obvious for three months; "he
ought to have known of IT," 6Landbers
VS.. National Tube company, Us, Pa.
545) In this case, as In many, we
see how the very obyiousness Of the
defect which, it seems, should nix the
responsibility on the employer is a
means of his avoiding responsibility.
Careless Fellow-EmpIoyes.
CD Finally. the employe assumes
the risk of all dangers due to careless
ness, incompetent of ignorant fellow
EMPLOYEES. (The new Pennsylvania
act of 1907 with regard TO this rule
will be noted later. This is perhaps
the most vital distinction between the
general law of negligence and the law
of negligence as between master and
servant. "A master is responsible for
the negligence of his servant In course
of employment without regard for
their pIttation except in case OF fei-
low servants" III, Pa. 1881. As be-
tween master and servant, the duty
of the master IS merely TO take due
ARE in employing servants OF ord1-
nary skill and carefulness. To Illus
trate: Suppose yardmaster in Ne"
York puts a car of dynamite at the
end of a train of cars instead or IN
the middle, as the rule of the COM
many would require, and because OF
this carelessnesS the dynamite car
when manv miles from New York.