Court Opinion

ID: 6422615
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-06-25 12:01:14.679322+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:51:50.570348
License: Public Domain

Holmes, J.
If machinery upon which a servant is employed has become dangerous, and the servant has complained of it, and has been promised that it shall be repaired, but is injured before the defect is remedied, and while he is reasonably expecting the promise to be performed, the promise is a circumstance to be considered by the jury in determining whether he has assumed the risk in the mean time, and whether he was using due care in working when he knew there was danger. But no case, we believe, has gone the length of deciding that the promise entitles the servant to recover as matter of law, which was the effect of the ruling asked. And if, as supposed in the request, the time for performance has gone by before the accident, *471and, as must have been the fact, the servant knows that the repair has not been made, there is a very strong argument that the servant is no longer relying upon the promise, but has decided to take the risk. Exceptions overruled.