Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1912-12-31

dent, II II was dangerous ana ms MINI
edge of the working of machinery was
such that it was not an unknown or an
unseen danger, the CONCLUSION y ifIestI-
bic that the accident was caused bE Ine
coutributory negligence ana want OF que
care on the part of the plaintiff in not
avoiding a danger known to INN ana the
judgment OF nOn-sult was properly or
dered
Exceptions oVerruled.
----
Andrcscoegin County
n I nm " " : Iibbev ct al Re
scripf. King l.
When an pmnloygr directs his en-
ujovae to' nerform a dangerous service
I,.bicb re,n{rss skin and canton 10 avoid
tho risks and hazards incident to its per-
faFnianrc ItHov,inq t}3a ennnlnvae is mex
narienced in such service and ignorant of
ifs dangers II is the duty of the en-
niovnr 10 Give him ADEQUATE information
- 10 mo 5an.a-g he is likely to meet in
nerfortnire the service, and suitable in
s11Icfiors and warnings as to the man
30 aad ,.,ct1fo1 III doing il so that he
,1a1- he al1a nv me ayprcisp of reasonable
rare On his mart 10 avoid the dangers
. An additiouaI dntv is imposed upon
an en4ntoVer who finds if necessary to
@ii,nt IN, ,sa If narticftlarfv hazardous
q ogppcies md annliances. of giving full
iGfoTnatfo, 10 his servant. who does not
,ita.,IsF ~ the information of the
nartie,y,ar darreTs #Tising from the use
d re g. erICb aVtraorainarv hazardous agen-
cies md sufffcienf Instructions 10 enable
- 80 intaiiirentir daterr,ina whether
"A
oiovment.. and. If he does, that he may
know how to avoid them by the exercise
If due care upon his part Welch vs..
An efnnlovee was directed TO use
dVnamite in blasting, to be exploded by
Tho use of the cotton fuse cap which cap
US aboTt an inch long and a little larg-
or tbaD . lead penciI, The explosive sub
stanca Vas az Tho bottom or closed end
Of The can being ConCealed there or dried
in Tbe netbod of connecting the fuse
rs
nd without twisting it, as far into the
cylinder of the can as prudent and not
strike the explosive substance, and then
the ton of the cap is to be crmped upon
~ use 60 tbat II NAV not move when
The can is. pushed into the soft sticks Of
dynamite il the end of the fuse should
he p,Ished against the charge in the cap
The sIight frictIon thereby caused would
he AMI 10 eXplode the cap 1t is import
ant also that there should be no dirt or
writ in the cvIinuer of the cap or on the
sSnd ~ tba fuen The plaintiff was not
warned nv anyone as 10 the risks and
dangers incident to using the cotton fuse
cap, or instructed as to the method OF
avoid tbe risk and danger of exploding
H. But he had seen another workman
use them, and had himself, prior to the
accident. used several of them.
As the plaintiff held one of the caps in
his right hand and with the other hand
was inserting the end of the cotton fuse
into the cylinder of the cap, and when,
10 his testimony, the fuse had
entered the cap but short distance, the
can exnloded causing the injuries com
nlained of
Held: That it was a question of fact
for the illry to determine from all the
evidence whether the plaintiff at the time
Of tba accident from experienee or other
wise had adequate information as to the
risks and dangers incident to inserting
the fuse into the loaded cap; and n
though il appears to the court t1at that
e1Iestion was a close one on the audience
20 We think II cannot be sakdfWith fea-