Source: http://www.ebooksread.com/authors-eng/lindley-daniel-clark/the-law-of-the-employment-of-labor-ral/page-14-the-law-of-the-employment-of-labor-ral.shtml
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 14:00:29+00:00

Document:
» Lukic V. Southern P. R. Co., 160 Fed. 135.
attempting to summarize them or to bring them into harmony.
charge of the so-called nondelegable duties of the employer.
ing from the application of the doctrine of nondelegable duties.
J Allen V. Goodwin. 92 Tenn. 385, 21 S.W. 760.
G. M. Co., 51 Cal. 255.
» Alaska Treadwell Gold Min. Co. v. Whelan. 168 U.S. 86, 18 Sup. Ct. 40.
« Vitto V. Keogan, 15 App. Div. 329, 44 N.Y. Supp. 1 ; Lehigh Valley Coal Co.
V. Jones, 86 Pa. 432 ; Viltor Mfg. Co. v. Otte, 157 Fod. 230 (C.C.A.).
6 Keenan v. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co., 145 N.Y. 190, 39 N.E. 711.
shall cease to control. It was characterized as a "discredited"
» Dobbin v. Richmond & D. R. Co., 81 N.C. 446, 31 Am. Rep. 512.
» New York, L. E. & W. R. Co. v. Bell, 112 Pa. 400, 4 Atl. 50.
69 Kans. 214, 52 Pac. 442 ; Southern R. Co. v. Barr, 21 Ky. L. R. 1615, 55 S.W.
S.W. 523) ; Faren v. Sellers, 39 La. Ann. 1011. 3 So. 363.
* Lukic V. Southern P. R. Co., 160 Fed. 135.
ferred by the employer on another employee.
the performance of those duties personal to the master."
> Stephens v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 86 Mo. 221.
» Miller v. Missouri P. R. Co.. 109 Mo. 350. 19 S.W. 58.
Ala. 245 ; Meehan v. Spiers Mfg. Co., 172 Mass. 375, 52 N.E. 618 ; Howd v. Miss.
C. R. Co., 50 Miss. 178.
general conduct of the business committed to his care."
» Malone v. Hathaway, 64 N.Y. 5, 21 Am. Rep. 573.
» Chicago, M. A St. P. R. Co. r. Robs, 112 U.S. 377. 5 Sup. Ct. 184.
per V. Indianapolis and St. Louis R. Co. (47 Mo. 567, 4 Am.
T. R. Co. V. Torrey, 58 Ark. 217, 24 S.W. 244.
« Ala., Code, sec. 3910 ; Conn., G.S.. sec. 4702 ; Mass.. Acts 1909, ch. 514, sec.
' Illinois C R. Co. v. Josey's Adm'x., 22 Ky. L. R. 1795. 61 S.W. 703 ; Consol.
119 N.C 728, 26 S.E. 161 ; Berea Stone Co. v. Kraft, 31 Ohio St. 287, 27 Am. Rep.
» Fogarty v. St. Louis Transfer Co., 180 Mo. 490, 79 S.W\ 664.
• Hutson V. Missouri P. R. Co., 50 Mo. App. 300.
capacity theory, while a case of the same date ^ supports it.
the federal courts are not uniform.
test of the character of the act. "The question is always,"
of a primary and absolute duty of the master to the servant.
> See further, Dayharsh v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co.. 103 Mo. 570. 15 S.W. 554.
and Russ v. Wabash W. R. Co., 112 Mo. 4.5, 20 S.W. 472.
« Sweeny v. Gulf, etc., R. Co.. 84 Tex. 433, 19 S.W. 555 : Texas & P. R. Co. v.
Reed, 32 S.W. 118 (Tex. Civ. App.).
» Gulf. C. & S. F. R. Co. V. Schwabbe, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 573. 21 S.W. 706.
* Peters v. George. 154 Fed. 634.
in so far to limit recovery for the acts of a superior.
of the law of employers' liability is steadily growing.
affect the defenses of assumed risks or contributory negligence.
> Supp., sees. 151 If. 151 Ig. See also pp. 186. 197, 198.
« Vindicator Consol. Min. Co. v. Firstbrook, 36 Colo. 499. 86 Pac. 313.
-151 le; Idaho. Acts 1909, p. 34; Ind., A.S., sec. 7083; Me., Acts 1909, ch.
P.R., R.S., sees. 322-331 ; and Texas, Acts 1909 (extra session), ch. 10.
» Coffee V. New York, etc., R. Co., 155 Mass. 21, 28 N.E. 1128.
« Ryalls 1). Mechanics' Mills, 150 Mass. 190, 22 N.E. 766.
» Kansas City, M. & B. R. Co. v. Burton, 97 Ala. 240, 12 So. 88.
* Gmaehle v. Rosenberg, 178 N.Y. 147, 70 N.E. 411.

References: V. 
 V. 
 v. 
 V. 

V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v.