Court Opinion

ID: 9807910
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:20:13.526999+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:04:46.611154
License: Public Domain

BeowN, J.,
concurring: It would seem that under the decisions of this Court cant hooks should be classified among the minor tools in ordinary and every-day use, the regular inspection of which is not required of the master, and for defects in which he is generally exempt from responsibility. But it appears in the evidence that this particular cant hook, the breaking of which caused the injury, was to be used in at best a rather dangerous business, the unloading of large logs from a car, an operation in which the safety of the laborer is to a considerable extent dependent upon the strength of the utensil.
The plaintiff knew this, and of course the foreman knew it. When given the cant hook by the foreman, the plaintiff protested that it was defective and unfit for rolling logs off the car. The foreman assured him that it was strong and would hold more than he could pull. The plaintiff relied upon such assurance, and was injured in consequence.
For these reasons, I think the Court erred in. sustaining the motion to nonsuit.