Daily press. [volume] (Newport News, Va.) 1896-current, 1908-05-08
por.tIoa coatrOllea BY careful. pru

dent onicers ought to exercise" II Is
noted that though the courts Of review
have Condemned any instructions that
could tend to charge the employer
with . higher degree of care than
that which nay be defined As orai.
nary. tie measure h not an absolute
one. but Is proportioned to the dan
gers to which the employee is exposed,
Then there are tools. appliances.
ETC.. to be considered. II is asserted
that in accordance with the rule as
to due care. the obligation rests on
the master to supply tools and appli.
ances that are reasonably safe for the
Intended use and reasonably well
adapted to. perform the work in con.
temptation. Closely related Is the
duty to provide q safe place to work
and proper material for use. The dis.
tinction between place and appliance
Is not an easy one to draw. though
the courts are stricter In their re-
quirements as to the former than to
the latter. As to new devices. 1t Is
claimed that what may be required In
the way OF Improvement and altera'
ton. or In the adoption Of any device
to accomplish the ends OF safety. Is
governed largely by the usual and or
binary course OF procedure Of those
In the same business. On this sub
jcct Mr.. Clark says:
1.-THE employer cannot be made an
insurer, nor is he bound to Introduce
the newest and safest appliances. On
the other hand. he cannot be allowed
to disregard all inventions for secur-
ing the safety and comfort OF his
workmen. But as new devices become
more generally used. the standard OF
the custom OF prudent men will be-
come correspondingly altered, and the
law Of general usage may compel the
adoption of devices the omission OF
which had not previously been consid.
cred as negligence. This rule opcr-
ates more effectively in the case Of
installing new equipments Or Of be-
ginning q new undertaking than where
the question is one Of the continuance
or modification OF established condi'
tons"
The courts have rendered numer.
GUS decisions concerning rules. A de-
fective system and inadequate rules
will not satisfy the law. but the pre-
sumption Is In favor ct the suficiency
of those provided. and It has been
held that manifest!y unreasonable or
clearly insufficient rules should leave
the employer open to the charge OF
negligence. In this, as in other cases.
common usage IL in general accepted
as conclusive. The absence OF rules
may be condoned II Il appears that 4
customary method Of carrying on
work is actually sanctioned and ap-
proved by the employer. and Is I'M
derstood by the employees as being
binding on them.
Statistics gathered by Mr.. Clark
conviuce him that the employer who
Is the agent Of the public In the mat
ter Of production and transportation.
should be charged with the duty OF
administering Industrial undertakings
that the burden Of the trade risk shah
fall on the industry at large. and not
be concentrated on the weakest point
On the individual workman. disabled
for service through the mere fact Of
his employment at the time and place
OF the occurrence Of an inevitable &C.
cident, or on the widow and children
OF such workman, II the accident re-
suits fatally.