The Wallace miner. [volume] (Wallace, Idaho) 1907-current, 1917-07-19
INSPECTING MACHINERY
LIABILITY OF OWNER
LAW REGARDING RESPONSIBLE
ITy CONSTRUED IN vARI.
Gus STATES.
&C. c. Sherlock in Engineering and
Mining JournaD

&C. c. Sherlock in Engineering and
Mining JournaD
The duty of mine owners and oper-
at0rs to inspect machinery to be used
In mining ore or in other hazardous
ways is matter Of great interest, In
the absence of express statutes on the
subject this duly exists. and what 1t
includes Is question that is being
continually brought to the attention
Of the courts.
In New Jersey case it was held
that the duty of master to his SER
want to exercise reasonable care Is
performed when he provides an appar-
atus in common use, purchased from a
reputable and experienced manufact-
urer, and makes a test, where test Is
required by law.
The New York court, speaking in a
similar case, said: while the employ
er must exercise reasonable care to
furnish safe implements, he is not liza
BILE for the negligence of others nor his
servants, nor is he negligent in rely
ing upon the performance of duty by
reputable contractors" In another
case the same court said: when an
employer purchases an engine or ma
chine Of a reputable manufacturer,
fully equipped with all the usual
guards and appliances in customary
use by men in the same business, he
has a right to use this machine in the
condition in which such machine is
furnished to him. in connection with
his business, without any imputaton
of negligence because 1t might have
been made safer IL made and equipped
iE some other way"
In Massachusetts case 1t was held
that the owner of quarry owes no
duty to his employees to inspect ex-
ploders given to the quarrymen for
use where the manufacturers were
well known and had made frequent
tests of the exploders
Second. Hand Machinery.
The rule. however, is different where
the appliance or machine is purchas-
ed second hand. In that case the mas
ter has no right to rely upon the
statement of the seller or upon the
name of the manufacturer. The duty
to personally inspect, either himself or
through his agents, is imposed upon
him. And the Illinois court has held
that the duty to inspect old, rusty and
worn parts placed in machinery Is
more urgent and necessary. The same
opinion is entertained by the Missouri
court. when an ordinary appliance is
to be put to an extraordinary or haz-
ardous use, notwithstanding it may
have been purchased from a RESPONSE
BILE source. The several opinions on
this point seem to agree and fairly
well establish the correct rule of ac-
ton.
Where machinery has been purchas-
ed from reputable manufacturer all
that the employer is bound to do Is to
test 1t to see If 1t is In good running
order. Beyond that, no duty is impos-
ed upon him. unless other defects were
obvious such as would cause an ordin-
airy prudent man to investigate
The courts do not hold an employer
responsible for lack of technical
which is ordinarily possess
ed only by persons in certain lines of
business and which it would therefore
be unjust to expect other persons to
posses.
View Of Federal Courts.
The federal courts, however. have
not taken the liberal view of the pro-
position expressed above. They have
held that the rule that the purchaser
If an article from a reputable manu-
'acturer is justified in assuming, in the
absence of anything to the contrary
iiscoverable by ordinary tests, that
he article is properly made, is not alb
'olute In the sense that 1t absolves
rom all duty Of reasonable inspection,
Tor In any case does 1t relieve from |
Inspection as to defects discernible by |
superficial examination.
Thus, the presumption that a. tool is
afe for use when purchased from a
equitable manufacturer can not be in
ulged when the tool in question was
ot one ordinarily in use but wa. of
special design of the defendant, and
he manufacturer had no knowledge
nat 1t was to be used in the manner
escribed.
in some states statutes have recent
been pasedd defining more definitely
he rights and liabilities Of employers
D plead the exemption noted. In
Their states. the right has been taken
way entirely by express legislation.
he question, specifically as it applies
each employer. is a matter Of local