Court Opinion

ID: 9638819
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 15:55:28.439509+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:09.948626
License: Public Domain

AMID ON, District Judge.
I concur in the reversal of this ease. My reasons are somewhat different from those stated by Judge SCOTT, and I state them in the hope of aiding the lower court in the trial of the ease upon the merits.
The trial court sustained the demurrer upon the ground that the complaint failed to specify any particular acts of negligence on the part of the defendant which caused the current of electricity to escape from its usual conduits and pass into the iron lever. That is the substance also of the argument of counsel for defendant.
Does the law require plaintiff to go hack of the primary cause of his injury, namely, the presence of the dangerous current of electricity in the lever, and point out the specific defect which caused the current of electricity to escape from its ordinary conduits and pass into the. lever. Elementary rules of pleading show that no such specification on the part of plaintiff was required. The rule on that subject is stated as follows in Cyc. vol. 29, p. 570:
“Negligence being tbe ultimate fact to be pleaded and not a mere conclusion of law, a declaration or complaint charging defendant with an aet injurious to plaintiff, with a general allegation of negligence in the performance of the aet, is sufficient, at least as against a general demurrer for want of sufeient facts, without stating the details or particulars of the aet causing the injury.”
The same rule is accurately stated in the case of Chaperon v. Portland General Electric Co., 41 Or. 39, 67 P. 928, as follows:
“We have recently held, after a careful review of the authorities, that it is sufficient, *580iñ. a declaration upon negligence, to specify the particular act, the commission or omission of which caused the injury, conjoining with it a general averment that it was negligently and carelessly done or omitted, and that it is unnecessary to go further and particularize or point out the specific facts going to establish the negligence relied upon.”
See, to the same effect, Denver Consol. Elec. Co. v. Lawrence, 31 Colo. 301, 73 P. 39; Lucid v. E. I. Du Pont Powder Co., 199 F. 377, 380, 118 C. C. A. 61, L. R. A. 1917E, 182; Bergen v. Tulare Power Co., 173 Cal. 709, 161 P. 269.
This court, in Gulf, Colo. & Santa Fe R. R. Co. v. Washington, 49 F. 347, 1 C. C. A. 286, stated the rule, as follows:
“Under that Code a complaint is good’ on demurrer if it,contains the substantial elements of a cause of action, however indefinitely or inartificially they may be stated. Indefinitenéss or’ uncertainty of statements in a complaint which, when construed in the most liberal manner, states the substance of a cause of action, is not a ground of demurrer, but is a defect to be corrected by motion for a more specific statement. * * * It is very Veil' settled that a general allegation of negligence, without stating the particular acts which constituted the negligence, is good, against a general demurrer.”
Precisely the same argument as counsel for defendant makes in the present case was made in the case of Newark Electric Light & Power Co. v. Ruddy, 62 N. J. Law, 505, 41 A. 712, 57 L. R. A. 624; 63 N. J. Law, 357, 46 A. 1100, 57 L. R. A. 624. That ease involved an accident caused by a broken wire hanging down near a sidewalk. Counsel for the company-presented his complaint as follows:
“No attempt was made to show that there had been no storm or other violence to account for the falling of the wire. Prom anything that appeared, a tree, a wall, a pole, a trolley wire or some other object may have fallen upon it and broken it. The local circumstances were as much, at least, within the knowledge of the plaintiff as of the defendant. The accident happened at the door of the plaintiff, and he must have known and have been able to show whether or not there was any external cause for the breaking of the wir.e.” *
. The court upon a careful review of the authorities held that the plaintiff was not charged with any such burden. It held that when a dangerous current of electricity is found where it will ■ not usually be present ,if proper care is exercised, that, creates a presumption of negligence upon the part of the company controlling the electrical enterprise.
Upon these elementary doctrines of pleading the complaint in the present case was plainly adequate as against a demurrer. I think it is also adequate as against a motion to make the pleading more definite' and certain. The remote cause of the current’s escaping to the lever lay wholly outside of the plaintiff’s knowledge. If he were to attempt to specify those remote grounds of negligence, it would have been mere guesswork and conjecture on his part. It may be said that he had a right to inspect the machinery which controlled the current of electricity and thus be enabled to speak more definitely. The answer to that is that plaintiff was rendered unconscious by the accident, and was confined to his house for months after the accident occurred. The defect which caused the injury was one which would be immediately discovered by the company and rectified, so by the time the plaintiff had an opportunity to inspect, the inspection would not have disclosed to him the cause of his injury.
The plaintiff here clearly sets out in his complaint that his injury was caused by the presence of a highly dangerous current of electricity in the iron lever which he was compelled to use in the performance of his service. He charges that the presence of the current in the lever was due to the negligence of defendant. Those averments'satisfy the elementary rules of pleading. It was error therefore to sustain the demurrer.
If we consider the case from the point of view of a trial on the merits, plaintiff, by proving the averments of his complaint, will make out a case requiring the submission of the question of defendant’s negligence to the jury. This results from the degree of care which defendant was obliged, to exercise, and from the statutory law of the state in which the accident occurred.
1. The standard of care established by the weight of authority for users of the hidden and dangerous power of electricity is this: “The highest degree of care which skill and foresight can attain consistent with the practical conduct of its business under the known methods and the present state of the particular art.” Denver Elec. Co. v. Simpson, 21 Colo. 371, 41 P. 499, 31 L. R. A. 566. This is the standard of care not only for wires in streets, but for service to patrons in offices and houses. Denver Consol. Elec. Co. v. Walters, 39 Colo. 301, 318, 89 P. 815, 818.; Alexander v. Nanticoke Light Co., 209 *581Pa. 571, 58 A. 1068, 67 L. R. A. 475, 477. It is also the standard of care for the workmen of an independent contractor or for the workmen of the defendant. Gagnon v. St. Mario’s Light Co., 26 Idaho, 87, 141 P. 89; Smith v. Middlesboro Elec. Co., 164 Ky. 46, 174 S. W. 773, Ann. Cas. 1917A, 1164; Bowling Green Co. v. Dean, 142 Ky. 678, 134 S. W. 1115; Geisman v. Missouri Edison Co., 173 Mo. 678, 73 S. W. 654; Shaw v. North Carolina Public Service Co., 168 N. C. 611, 84 S. E. 1010; Myers v. Portland Light Co., 68 Or. 599, 138 P. 213; Donnelly v. Lehigh Elec. Co., 258 Pa. 580, 102 A. 219; Yeager v. Edison Elec. Co., 242 Pa. 101, 88 A. 872; Fitzgerald v. Edison Elec. Co., 200 Pa. 510, 50 A. 161, 86 Am. St. Rep. 732.
The law is carefully reviewed in the case of Sunday Creek Co. v. Gray, 238 P. 325 (4th Circuit). That was a ease between master and servant. The servant was killed and his administrator was permitted to recover. The rule of care required by a master employing the dangerous agency of electricity is stated as follows:
“Where the master employs electricity in his operation he must exercise a supreme degree of care for the servant’s safety.”
The degree of care thus established for users of the dangerous force of electricity is substantially the same as the care required of a carrier with respect to passengers, namely, the highest degree of care compatible with the practical carrying on of its business.
2. The fellow-servant rule has been abolished in the state of Arkansas where the accident occurred. See section 7137, Crawford & Moses’ Digest of the Statutes of Arkansas, 1921; Aluminum Co. v. Ramsey, 89 Ark. 522, 117 S. W. 568; Ozan Lumber Co. v. Biddie, 87 Ark. 587, 113 S. W. 796; Soard v. Western Anthracite Co., 92 Ark. 502, 123 S. W. 759.
The foregoing considerations seem to me to be controlling of the present ease. They were wholly overlooked by the learned trial judge.
Judge Sanborn states the general doctrine in the leading authority, Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. Dixon, 139 F. 737, 740, 71 C. C. A. 555, 558, as follows:
“But the doctrino, ‘res ipsa loquitur,’ is inapplicable to eases between master and servant brought to recover damages for negligence, because there are many possible causes of accidents during service, the risk of some of which, such as the negligence of fellow servants and the other ordinary dangers of the work, the servant assumes, while for the risk of others, such as the lack of ordinary care to construct or keep in repair the machinery or place of work, the master is responsible. The mere happening of an accident which injures a servant fails to indicate whether it resulted from one of the causes the risk of which is the servant’s, or from one of those the risk of which is the master’s; and for this reason it raises no presumption that it was caused by the negligence of the. latter.”
The inference of negligence from an event is not different in the ease of master and servant from, what it is in the case of a master and third parties. The event proclaims negligence in the one ease the same as in the other. Why then is the rule of law different? Because the event does not point out the party whose negligence caused the injury. In the case of an industrial enterprise, as Judge Sanborn points out, the injury may have been caused by the negligence of a fellow servant, or by the negligence of the master. It is just as likely to have been caused by one as by the other. It is because the event does not point out the culpable party that the rule of res ipsa loquitur cannot generally he applied between master and servant. When, however, the fellow-servant rule is abolished, and the master is responsible not only for his own negligence but for the negligence of the Co-employes of the plaintiff, the situation is entirely changed. The reason for the rule declared by Judge Sanborn in the above quotation is profoundly modified. The event which gives rise to an inference of negligence then points to the master as the responsible party whether the negligence is his personal negligence or that of a fellow servant. The complaint in the present ease shows plainly that plaintiff was free from contributory negligence. It also shows that the cause of the accident was not one of the ordinary risks of the employment. The injury, therefore, can be explained only upon one of the following grounds: (1)
The negligence of the master or a eoemployó of the plaintiff. (2) A latent defect for which the master would not be responsible. (3) A defect which arose so recently that defendant could not have discovered it by the exorcise of proper care. (4) An act of God.
The claim that the injury was caused by an act of God is clearly defensive. Orient Ins. Co. v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 31 Mont. 502, 78 P. 1036; Chicago, etc., R. R. Co. v. Shaw, 63 Neb. 380, 88 N. W. 508, 56 L. R. A. 341. Changes in humidity, ordinary *582storms, even, thunderbolts, are not acts of God, but contingencies against which the user of electricity must provide. S. W. Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Abeles, 94 Ark. 254, 126 S. W. 724, 140 Am. St. Rep. 115, 21 Ann. Cas. 1006; Warren v. Missouri Telephone Co., 196 Mo. App. 549, 196 S. W. 1030; 20 Corpus Juris, 344, note 99; Id. 363, note 63.
Let us now consider the claim that the injury was caused by a latent or recent defect. If the electric current was diverted by reason of some latent defect, or because ,of a defect of such recent origin that defendant in the exercise of proper care could not have discovered it, the defendant would not be liable. The question in this case, however, is this: Upon whom rests the burden of going forward with the evidence to show these exonerating facts? The great weight of authority says that the master -must produce that proof. If he makes out a prima facie ease on those questions, it would then be the duty of the plaintiff to answer by countervailing evidence. What has just been said does not mean that plaintiff does not have the burden -of proving the negligence of defendant. He makes out a prima facie ease on that subject by the accident itself, and its attendant circumstances. It then becomes the duty of defendant, if there are exonerating facts, to produce evidence on those subjects. But when the whole evidence is in, the plaintiff is bound to satisfy the jury by a preponderance of the evidence that his injury was caused by the negligence of defendant. It is important to get this feature of the case clear. The term “burden of proof’,’ has a double meaning. (1) It means the duty of a party to establish the issue which he tenders in Ms pleading. 'That burden rests upon him at the beginning of the case, and also at the end of the case. (2) The term “burden of proof” means the duty to go forward with the evidence from time to time in the progress of the trial. That burden constantly shifts, while the first burden never shifts. This subject was first explained by James Bradley Thayer in his Preliminary Treatise on Evidence, at page 355. It is also discussed by Wigmore, § 2489 et seq. It is best dealt with by Chamberlayne, beginning at section 936. TMs author makes the wise suggestion that the term “burden of proof,” when it has the second meaning, should be called “burden of evidence.”
That the. burden of going forward with the evidence to prove that the injury was caused by latent or recent defects rests upon the defendant is clearly established by the courts. Ross v. Double Shoals Cotton Mills, 140 N. C. 115, 52 S. E. 121, 124, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 298; Trenton Pass. Ry. Co. v. Cooper, 60 N. J. Law, 219, 37 A. 730, 38 L. R. A. 637, 64 Am. St. Rep. 592; Boyd v. Portland Gen. Elec. Co., 41 Or. 336, 68 P. 810; Shaw v. N. C. Public Service Co., 168 N. C. 611, 84 S. E. 1010; Shearman & Redfield on Negligence, §§ 58, 58a, 58b, and 59.
The whole subject is presented with clearness and accuracy by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, in Griffin v. Boston & Albany R. R. Co., 148 Mass. 143, 19 N. E. 166, 1 L. R. A. 698, 12 Am. St. Rep. 526. The suit was brought to recover damages for the death of an employee, caused by the spreading of a link used in coupling freight cars. At the conclusion of plaintiff’s evidence the trial court directed a verdict in favor of the defendant. In reversing this decision, the Supreme Court, speaking by Judge Allen, used the following language:
“If through a want of reasonable care and diligence unsafe coupling links were furnished, even though tMs were done by agents of the railroad company, the neglect is to be treated as the neglect of the company itself. Now it is true that the defendant may have used due care, although the particular coupling link which spread or opened, and thereby led to the accident, proved to be unsuitable or unsafe. There may have been a latent defect which was undiscoverable. The link in question may have come with a car from another railroad, so that the defendant’s duty was merely one of inspection, and the defendant may have done its duty in this respect. Or, in other particulars, the fault may have been the fault of a fellow servant, for whose negligence the defendant would not be responsible to the plaintiff. It may have been that the defendant could have exonerated itself fully from liability. But what we have to consider is, whether under the circumstances the plaintiff went far enough with Ms offer of proof to put the defendant' upon its defense—far enough to make out a prima facie case; and in considering this question, it is impossible not to take into view the knowledge which the plaintiff and the defendant respectively possessed, or had the means of obtaining. The history of this broken link is not disclosed— whether it was new or old, whether originally sufficient or insufficient, worn or not worn, whether it was furnished by the defendant itself as a part of its own equip*583ment, or whether it came from some other railroad. These facts it is reasonable to assume, were not within the plaintiff’s knowledge, or means of knowledge. The railroad train was under the management of the defendant. The defendant knew or had the means of knowing where and by whom the train was made up, of what cars it was composed, and wliat degree of caro and diligence had been observed in making it safe to be run. The separation of a train in consequence of the spreading of a link, where nothing further appears, is more naturally to be attributed to an imperfection or defect in the link than to any other cause. Ordinarily, such separation would not happen if the link was sound and suitable for use. If the link was not sound and suitable for use, the fact of its being used in that condition properly calls for explanation from the defendant; and if under such circumstances the defendant fails to put in any evidence, some inference against it may be drawn therefrom. The fact may be susceptible of an explanation sufficient to exonerate the defendant. But in the absence of such explanation, we think the jury might properly infer negligence on the part of the defendant. Primarily in such ease one may properly look to the railroad company itself, whose duty it is to use reasonable care to provide safe instruments and means for operating the railroad. In the absence of any explanation by the company, it is more probable that the separation of the train was from a cause for which it would be responsible than that it was from a cause for which it would not be responsible.”
The same subject is ably considered in Chenall v. Palmer Brick Co., 117 Ga. 106, 43 S. E. 443. The opinion is by Judge Lamar, afterwards Mr. Justice Lamar of the United States Supreme Court. The suit was brought to recover damages for injuries suffered by an employee from the falling of a brick arch. At the conclusion of the evidence the trial court directed a verdict in favor of the defendant. In reversing the decision Judge Lamar discussed the subject as follows:
“There is a disposition to argue that every injury is the result of somebody’s negligence, but in many cases they are mere accidents or casualties for which, humanly speaking, no one is to blame; in others, the person injured is at fault; in some, his negligence contributes to the result; in others, a fellow servant was to blame. In alL such instances the maxim, ‘lies ipsa loquitur,’ affords little or no assistance to the jury, for, even supposing that the injury itself proclaims negligence, it says nothing as to who was negligent, and fixes no basis for determining whether the plaintiff, the defendant, a fellow servant, or some stranger may not have been at fault. There are other eases, however, where, when it is shown that the defendant owned or controlled the thing which, when properly constructed, maintained, or operated, did not, in the ordinary course of events, so act as to injure those nearby, proof that damage was caused by such thing affords reasonable evidence that the injury was occasioned by want of ordinary care. Prima facie, that want of due care should be referred to him under whose management and control the instrument of injury was found. The jury would not bo warranted in reasoning, in a strictly logical form: ‘Buildings do not collapse without negligence. This building collapsed. Therefore there was negligence,’ for buildings do fall without any one being to blame, and as a result of flood and storm. But ordinarily extraordinary and external causes may be treated as the exception, to be established by the defendant. All that the plaintiff should be, required to do in the first instance is to show that the defendant owned, operated, and maintained, or controlled and was responsible for the management and maintenance of, the thing doing the damage; that the accident was of a kind which, in the absence of proof of some external cause, does' not ordinarily happen without negligence. When he has shown this, he has east a burden on the defendant, who may then proceed to show that the accident was occasioned by vis major, or by other causes for which he was not responsible.”
In all well-considered cases the duty of explaining an accident which, with its attendant circumstances, makes out a prima facie case of negligence, is placed upon the defendant. That is the meaning of the phrase, “in the absence of explanation,” in the statement of the doctrine in San Juan Light Co. v. Pequena, 224 U. S. 89, 98, 38 S. Ct. 339, 56 L. Ed. 680. The same thought is suggested in Sweeney v. Erving, 228 U. S. 233, 240, 33 S. Ct. 416, 57 L. Ed. 815, Ann. Cas. 19141), 905, when the court says that the prima facie case made out by the accident and its attendant circumstances “call for explanation or rebuttal.” In Houston v. Brush, 66 Vt. 331, 29 A. 380, the Supreme Court of Vermont uses the phrase, “In the absence of evidence showing that it Happened without the fault of the defendant.” *584The same statement of the rule is made in Shearman & Redfield (6th Ed.) § 58b.
There may be eases in which a plaintiff might properly be called upon to show that a defect in a simple instrument with which he was as •well acquainted as the employer, had existed' for a sufficient time for the employer to have discovered and remedied it by the exercise of proper care. But in cases like the present, in which the accident and its attendant .circumstances furnish a reasonable ground for the inference of defendant’s negligence, it. becomes the duty of the defendant, if there are exculpatory facts such as latent or recent defects, to produce the evidence,on .those subjects.
When the fellow-servant rule is abolished the doctrine, of. res ipsa loquitur may properly be applied as between master and servant. A case directly in point is Iarussi v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. (C. C.) 155 P. 654, 657. That case arose in Kansas, where the fellow-servant rule had been abolished. The plaintiff was injured by the derailment of a work train, and it was urged that proof of the accident, furnished no legal inference of negligence. Judge Sanborn, of the Western District of Wisconsin, after pointing out that the Kansas statute was applicable, proceeds as follows :
“It follows from what has been said that the rule of res. ipsa loquitur applies to this case. This would not be so in the absence of the act of 1874, because it could not be told whether the deceased was injured by the negligence of a coemployee or by the fault of the company through some independent officer in the relation of a vice principal. But, inasmuch as the plaintiff was a servant, and the company is made liable by the act of 1874 for the negligence of a fellow servant and by the common law for the negligence of a vice principal, it follows that any negligence on the part of the company makes it responsible, and that the mere fact of the happening of the accident raises a presumption of negligence which places the burden upon the defendant to rebut.”
This case was affirmed on appeal in Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. v. Iarussi, 161 F. 66, 88 C. C. A. 230.
This court has held that the rule that res ipsa loquitur does not apply as between master and servant is not of universal application. In the case of American Car & Foundry Co. v. Barry, 195 F. 919, 921, 115 C. C. A. 607, Judge Sihith, speaking for this court, points out the fact that the rule is not" absolute and cites with approval the following cases: Petrarca v. Quidnick, 27 R. I. 265, 61 A. 648; Ross v. Double Shoals Cotton Mills, 140 N. C. 115, 52 S. E. 121, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 298. Both of those cases involved an accident to an employee by reason of a belt slipping from a loose pulley to a tight pulley, and thereby setting machinery in motion and causing injury to the employee. The Supreme Courts of Rhode Island and North Carolina both held that the fact that a belt slipped from a loose pulley to a tight pulley presented a case for the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. If the slipping of a belt from a loose to a tight pulley presents a ease for the application of the rule, surely an accident like the present would present a far stronger case. See, also, Blanton v. Dold, 109 Mo. 64, 18 S. W. 1149.
Another case in this circuit is Nebraska Bridge Supply & Lumber Co. v. Jeffery, 169 F. 609, 95 C. C. A. 137. There the trial court held that the fact of the accident created a conclusive presumption of negligence, and refused to submit to the jury the question of whether the defendant had presented evidence sufficient to rebut the inference of negligence. This court very properly held that the inference of negligence under the res ipsa loquitur doctrine is only a presumption of fact, and is open to rebuttal, and in any case the inference of negligence is' not one of law, but is wholly a question of fact, and ought to be submitted to the jury. The éourt, however, clearly recognized thé doctrine as applicable to the accident in that case. The rule which we applied has since been more fully stated by the Supreme Court in Sweeney v. Erving, 228 U. S. 233, 240, 33 S. Ct. 416, 418, 57 L. Ed. 815, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 905, as follows:
“In our opinion, res ipsa loquitur means that the facts of the occurrence warrant the inference of negligence, not that they compel such an inference; that they furnish circumstantial evidence of negligence where direct evidence of it may be lacking, but it is evidence to be weighed, not necessarily to be accepted as sufficient; that they call for explanation or rebuttal, not necessarily that they require it; that they make a case to be decided by the jury, not that they forestall the verdict. Res ipsa loquitur, where it applies, does not convert' the defendant’s general issue into an affirmative defense. When all the evidence is in, the question for the jury is, whether the preponderance is with the plaintiff.” •
The doctrine has also been applied in cases of injury to a servant, in the Ninth; *585Sixth, and Second Circuits in the following cases: Lucid v. E. I. Du Pont Powder Co., 199 F. 377, 118 C. C. A. 61, L. R. A. 1917E, 182; Byers v. Carnegie Steel Co., 159 F. 347, 86 C. C. A. 347, 16 L. R, A. (N. S.) 214; Central R. R. Co. v. Peluso (C. C. A.) 286 F. 661; Hunter v. Illinois Central R. R. Co., 110 C. C. A. 459, 188 F. 645, 651.
In none o £ the foregoing cases in this circuit and in the other circuits had the fellow-servant rule been abolished. Surely if the rule could be applied whore the fellow-servant rule was in force, no sound reason can be given why the inference of negligence should not be indulged in a case where the fellow-servant rule has been abrogated.
The latest federal decision on the questions here involved is Baltimore & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Kast (C. C. A.) 299 F. 419. The Circuit Court of Appeals of the Sixth Circuit there applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to facts far less cogent than those in the present case. The action arose under the federal Liability Act (Comp. St. §§ 8657-8665), which abolishes the fellow-servant rule, and the court makes this one of the important grounds for holding the accident and its attendant circumstancos to make out a prima facie case. The court also points out the fact that the Supreme Court denied an application for a writ of certiorari to review the Peluso Case.
The Supreme Court states the conditions for the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur as follows in San Juan Light Co. v. Requena, 224 U. S. 89, 98, 32 S. Ct. 399, 401, 56 L. Ed. 680:
“When a thing which causes injury, without fault of the injured person, is shown to be under the exclusive control of the defendant, and the injury is such as in the ordinary course of things does not occur if the one having such control uses proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of an explanation, that the injury arose from the defendant’s want of care.”
The present ease fits exactly the conditions thus prescribed.
1. There is no pretense that the plaintiff was guilty of any negligence.
2. The defendant had the exclusive control of the electrical appliances which caused the current to escape to the lever.
3. The injury was such as in the ordinary course of things does not occur if the one having such control uses proper care.
The quotations in the opinion from 20 A. & E. Ency. of Law are not in harmony with the decisions of the Supreme Court or of this court. They all contain the vicious doctrine that the servant assumes the risk of defective machinery if he knew of the defects, or “could have discovered them by the exercise of ordinary care.” The servant is not bound to exercise ordinary care, or any affirmative care to discover defects in machinery .furnished him by the master. The true rule is that the servant assumes the risk of defective machinery when he knows of the defect, or it is so obvious and patent that an ordinary workman would discover it as an incident of the performance of his service. United States Smelting Co. v. Parry, 166 F. 407, 409, 92 C. C. A. 159; Republic Elevator Co. v. Lund, 196 F. 745, 749, 116 C. C. A. 373, 45 L. R. A. (N. S.) 707; H. D. Williams Cooperage Co. v. Sams, 198 F. 852, 117 C. C. A. 494; Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Archibald, 170 U. S. 665, 672, 18 S. Ct. 777, 42 L. Ed. 1188; Choctaw & Okla. R. R. Co. v. McDade, 191 U. S. 64, 68, 24 S. Ct. 24, 48 L. Ed. 96.
The proper approach to this case is well stated by the Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey, in Bahr v. Lombard, 53 N. J. Law, 233, 238, 21 A. 190, 191:
“To-day a single plant will comprise a multitude of diverse appliances, the operators of one being, for the most part, totally ignorant of all the others; while not one citizen in thousands knows anything in re'gard to the character and construction of any of the now mechanical processes with which he is met at every turn, still less of the dangers incident to their operation. Under these changed conditions, to compel plaintiffs in every case to ascribe some specific act as negligence would be to make a recovery for injuries dependent upon the possession of a special technical knowledge, and to grant immunity to the users of dangerous agencies in proportion to the success with which the special element of danger was concealed from the publie.”