ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

of business does not as matter of law, exonerate | no instruction on such subject had been given.the employer for liability for injuries.-Id. Peerless Coal Co. v. Copenhaver, 176 S. W. 1002.

288 (Ky.) Whether the danger of obeying an order was appreciated by an employé and was such that a person of ordinary prudence would have refused to encounter it was a question for the jury.-Yellow Poplar Lumber Co. v. Bartley, 176 S. W. 201.

288 (Mo.App.) In servant's action for injury to his eye from splashing of liquid being drawn from retort in nitric acid works to buggy or tank, evidence held to make his assumption

of risk a question for the jury.-Whelan v. United Zinc & Chemical Co., 176 S. W. 704.

296 (Mo.App.) An instruction conditioning plaintiff's right to recover on his exercise of ordinary care covered the element of contributory negligence.-Barnard v. Waverly Brick & Coal Co., 176 S. W. 1108.

action for injuries to an employé, held not to
297 (Tex.Civ.App.) A special verdict, in an
show contributory negligence.-Denison Cotton
Mill Co. v. McAmis, 176 S. W. 621.

tiff assumed the risk.-Id.
A special verdict held not to show that plain-

297 (Tex.Civ.App.) A special verdict in an action for injuries to an employé held a finding that he understood and appreciated the danger and assumed the risk.-Missouri, O. & G. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Black, 176 S. W. 755.

288 (Mo.App.) That the injured employé had made no complaint and received no express assurance that the trench which caved in was safe held not to charge him with assumption of risk, as a matter of law, where he was working under the directions of a foreman.-Barnard IV. LIABILITIES FOR INJURIES TO v. Waverly Brick & Coal Co., 176 S. W. 1108. Where, in an employé's action for injuries, the evidence as to whether plaintiff assumed the risk is such that reasonable minds might differ thereon, such question is for the jury. -Id.

289 (Ky.) In an action for injuries to a railroad employé, caused by a rail, which he was helping to load onto a car, falling on his foot, evidence held not to show that the servant was negligent as a matter of law.-Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co. v. Gardner, 176 S. W. 351.

289 (Mo.App.) It is not negligence, as a matter of law, for a mill foreman to attempt to replace a belt on a pulley without stopping the machinery.-Daniels v. Goeke, 176 S. W. 301. Where an employé's duties required him to adjust the belting on a shaft which he could not get around or under, it was not negligence, as a matter of law, for him to step over the

shaft.-Id.

The fact that an employé attempted to replace a belt without stopping the machinery did not show him negligent, as a matter of law, for choosing a dangerous rather than a safe way

to do the work.-Id.

THIRD PERSONS.

(B) Work of Independent Contractor. 315 (Tex.Civ.App.) Though injury resulted from the failure of the contractor of a street railway company to comply with an ordinance prohibiting depressions between tracks, the street railway company cannot be held negligent. -Rinker v. Galveston-Houston Electric Ry. Co., 176 S. W. 737.

319 (Tex.Civ.App.) Owner of realty employing contractor to erect building thereon, held not to have contracted for such an inherently dangerous piece of work as to render the contractor in running into plaintiff with him liable for the negligent act of a servant of a wheelbarrow.-Wilson v. Crutcher, 176 S. W. 625.

(C) Actions.

331 (Tenn.) Defendant street railway company held liable in exemplary damages to plaintiff tortiously assaulted by its night watchman while endeavoring to extricate his automobile from an excavation opened by the defendant.-Memphis St. Ry. Co. v. Stratton, 176 S. W. 105.

MAXIMS.

MEASURE OF DAMAGES.

289 (Mo.App.) Where the operator of a See Equity, 65. woodcutting machine was injured while attempting to adjust a rapidly revolving drill in an emergency, endangering his own safety, the question of contributory negligence was for the See Damages, 100-124. jury.-Hughes v. D. E. Marshall Contracting & Mfg. Co., 176 S. W. 534.

MECHANICS' LIENS.

VII. ENFORCEMENT.

289 (Mo.App.) In servant's action for inju ry from splashing of residue being drawn from retort in nitric acid works to buggy or tank, evi-247 (Mo.App.) A materialman, who prodence held to make his contributory negligence a question for the jury.-Whelan v. United Zinc & Chemical Co., 176 S. W. 704.

289 (Mo.App.) In an action by a street car hostler crushed between two cars, held, that the question of his contributory negligence was for the jury.-Davis v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 176 S. W. 1067.

Where a motorman in charge of the car which was being backed to couple to another was bound to obey the hostler's order, the hos tler is not guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law in going between the cars, where he directed that the motorman should back slowly.-Id.

289 (Mo.App.) Where, in an employé's action for injuries, the evidence as to whether plaintiff was contributorily negligent is such that reasonable minds might differ thereon, such question is for the jury.-Barnard v. Waverly Brick & Coal Co., 176 S. W. 1108.

291 (Ky.) In an action for injuries to a miner, it was error to refuse a concrete instruction as to his duty to remove loose slate, where

cured a mechanic's lien on the new portion of a building which was enlarged and remodeled by a lessee, held not entitled to remove the new part, where to do so would practically destroy the entire building.-Orear v. Dierks Lumber Co., 176 S. W. 467.

VIII. INDEMNITY AGAINST LIENS.

317 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where an owner of land requires of his contractor a bond binding him and his surety to pay all debts contracted for materials, materialmen may sustain an action against the contractor and the surety upon the bond.-General Bonding & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Waples Lumber Co., 176 S. W. 651.

Contractor's surety bond held to run only to sion evidencing such undertaking, it could not the owner, so that, where there was no provibe sued upon by materialmen, directly or through the owner, as trustee, for their benefit. Id.

MENTAL SUFFERING.

See Libel and Slander, 119; Telegraphs and Telephones, 53, 68.

performing services for another company voluntarily or under employment by it.-Ligon's Adm'r v. Evansville Rys. Co., 176 S. W. 968. 99 (Ky.) The responsibility of another company, whose negligence rendered the place of employment unsafe, does not relieve the employer of his liability for injuries to an employé.-Ligon's Adm'r v. Evansville Rys. Co., 176 S. W. 968.

(B) Tools, Machinery, Appliances, and Places for Work.

103 (Mo.App.) For a master to delegate to expert cable splicers the duty of selecting the ropes for their platforms is not negligence, where they knew more about the work than any one else.-Kellerman v. Kansas City LongDistance Telephone Co., 176 S. W. 1059.

106 (Ky.) An employer must furnish his employé a reasonably safe place, material, and appliances, though the work is performed on the premises of another and for the latter's benefit.-Ligon's Adm'r v. Evansville Rys. Co., 176 S. W. 968.

~~118 (Ky.) Under Ky. St. 1909, § 2739b, where the owner does not supply props where they can be conveniently reached, a miner is not required to select and mark props; a mere request therefor being sufficient to impose on the owner the duty to furnish them.-Peerless Coal Co. v. Copenhaver, 176 S. W. 1002.

liable for the flagman's injury therefrom.-BlissCook Oak Co. v. Mormon, 176 S. W. 305.

149 (Ky.) Master's duty held violated, where youthful and inexperienced servant was injured obeying foreman's order; it appearing that the master knew or ought to have known that the execution of the order involved danger. Yellow Poplar Lumber Co. v. Bartley, 176 S. W. 201.

Employé injured in obeying foreman's order to go into a place of danger held entitled to recover, though foreman's negligence was not gross.-Id.

(D) Warning and Instructing Servant.

153 (Mo.App.) A master is not liable for injuries to a servant following a failure to warn and instruct him unless it appeared that the master knew, actually or constructively that the servant was inexperienced.-Batesel v. American Zinc, Lead & Smelting Co., 176 S. W. 446. 155 (Mo.App.) Plaintiff, 38 years of age, employed about a baler for scrap wire, and to whom the danger from getting his hand into it when it was moving was obvious, held not entitled to any warning thereof.-Piorkowski v. A. Leschen & Sons Rope Co., 176 S. W. 258.

(E) Fellow Servants.

179 (Ark.) Acts 1911, p. 55, fixing the liability of railroads for injuries to their employés and abolishing the defense of negligence of fellow servants, held not unconstitutional.-St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Ingram, 176 S. W. 692.

118 (Mo.App.) Where an employer directs an employé to work in a trench, without taking such steps to prevent it from caving in as an ordinarily prudent man would have under the circumstances, he is liable for injuries to the employé from the caving in of the trench.180 (Ark.) The provision of Acts 1911, p. Barnard v. Waverly Brick & Coal Co., 176 S. 56, § 1, making a railroad liable to its employés for injuries caused by the negligence of another employé, applies only to employés engaged in the operation of the road.-St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Ingram, 176 S. W. 692.

W. 1108.

119 (Ky.) An employer must in furnishing his employés a place to work, exercise the utmost care and skill to keep electric wires free from danger.-Stearns Coal & Lumber Co. v. Williams, 176 S. W. 15.

121 (Mo.App.) A grain conveyor a few feet in front of a shafting, under which an employé had to go to reach the shafting, was not a guard of the shafting, which satisfied the requirements of Rev. St. 1909, § 7828.-Daniels v. Goeke, 176 S. W. 301.

121 (Mo.App.) Under Rev. St. 1909, § 7828, requiring dangerous machinery to be guarded, employer held not liable, where during his temporary absence employé working at rear of mangler reached over the machine to feed it and had her hands drawn between the rollers. Dunnivent v. Finn, 176 S. W. 1099.

A provision of Acts 1911, p. 56, § 1, making a railroad liable for injuries to its employés caused by the negligence of another employé, applies to a member of a railroad bridge crew unloading piling from a car.-Id.

185 (Tex.Civ.App.) An employé injured by an explosion while men, acting with the permission of a coemployé, were preparing to explode powder not in furtherance of their work, held not entitled to recover from the employer.Sherrill v. American Well & Prospecting Co., 176 S. W. 658.

190 (Tex. Civ.App.) An employé injured by explosion held not entitled to recover because the accident was not one which the vice principal could have contemplated.-Sherrill v. American Well & Prospecting Co., 176 S. W. 658.

129 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where plaintiff's husband was killed while in the scope of his employment on defendant's merry-go-round, negli-201 (Ky.) Where the negligent act causing gence held not to be predicated upon failure of an employe's injury was that of a fellow servthe employer to furnish certain lock nuts, etc., ant, but at the express direction of the assistto steady the machine.-Hutcherson v. Amarillo ant foreman, the negligence is attributed to the St. Ry. Co., 176 S. W. 856. foreman, and through him imputed to the master. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co. v. Gardner, 176. S. W. 351.

(C) Methods of Work, Rules, and Orders. 137 (Mo.App.) In servant's action for in-202 (Ky.) Where the acts which resulted in jury while using baler, foreman's direction to him to operate it with the lid raised held not actionable negligence where the master could not have reasonably anticipated that such method of operation would result in injury to plaintiff.-Piorkowski v. A. Leschen & Sons Rope Co., 176 S. W. 258.

139 (Ky.) That employé directed by foreman to loosen a log was not actually doing so, but merely getting a cant hook in order to loosen the log, when injured, held immaterial. -Yellow Poplar Lumber Co. v. Bartley, 176 S. W. 201.

146 (Ark.) If the leverman starts the drum in skidding logs, without signal from the flagman, contrary to rule for safety of the flagman,

injury to a servant were those of an assistant foreman in charge of the particular work, and death did not result from the injuries, the employer is liable only if those acts were gross negligence.-Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co. v. Gardner, 176 S. W. 351.

(F) Risks Assumed by Servant.

204 (Tex.Civ.App.) Private carrier operating narrow gauge railroad in its own yards held a person operating a railroad, within Rev. St. 1911, art. 6645, to render proper refusal of charge upon assumed risk in suit for killing of servant.-Consolidated Kansas City Smelting & Refining Co. v. Schulte, 176 S. W. 94.

The failure of an employer, operator within

equip its cars with automatic couplers, was a defect, within Rev. St. 1911, art. 6645.-Id. Rev. St. 1911, art. 6645, abrogating to an extent the defense of assumption of risk, held not unconstitutional.-Id.

con

208 (Tex.Civ.App.) An employé of a tractor held, in an action for injury by him against the contractor's employer, not to have assumed the risk of defendant's putting and leaving the premises in a dangerous condition during the course of the work.-Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Fults, 176 S. W. 600. 209 (Tex.Civ.App.) An employé killed in course of his employment on a merry-go-round held to have assumed the risk of injury from unguarded cogwheels.-Hutcherson v. Amarillo St. Ry. Co., 176 S. W. 856.

not have, and due care would not have given him, knowledge of such change.-Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co. v. Gardner, 176 S. W. 351. A servant assumes the open and obvious risks incident to his employment, but not the risks arising from the master's negligence.-Id.

226 (Mo.App.) A servant does not assume risks caused by the master's negligence in selection of methods and appliances, but only those risks which remain after the employer has exercised ordinary care.-Whelan v. United Zinc & Chemical Co., 176 S. W. 704.

(G) Contributory Negligence of Servant. 229 (Mo.App.) An employé injured from the caving in of a trench in which he was working held not negligent, where he was not doing One killed in the course of his employment on anything he should not have done or omitting a merry-go-round held to have assumed the risk to do anything he should have done.-Barnard of injury from the controlling switch, defective v. Waverly Brick & Coal Co., 176 S. W. 1108. in that it might be closed by gravity alone. 230 (Mo.App.) A servant who, knowing his

-Id.

[blocks in formation]

217 (Tex.Civ.App.) An employer is not relieved from liability for an injury by an unguarded machine because the employé knew it was unguarded, where he did not appreciate the danger thereof.-Magnolia Paper Co. v. Duffy, 176 S. W. 89.

217 (Tex.Civ.App.) An employé assisting in moving a rail with knowledge of insufficient help held to assume the risk of injury.-Missouri, O. & G. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Black, 176 S. W. 755. 217 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where plaintiff's husband was killed in the course of his duties on a merry-go-round, negligence of employer held not to be predicated upon its failure to equip with a spring a switch constantly operated by deceased. Hutcherson v. Amarillo St. Ry. Co., 176 S. W. 856.

inexperience, attempts to use dynamite to split boulders, merely because others in the same employment were allowed to do so, is guilty of contributory negligence.-Batesel v. American Zinc, Lead & Smelting Co., 176 S. W. 446.

233 (Mo.App.) A foreman, though for some purposes considered a vice principal, may recover from his employer for injuries resulting from defective appliances furnished by the employer.-Daniels v. Goeke, 176 S. W. 301.

233 (Mo.App.) An expert telephone cable splicer who used defective ropes, though he had been informed he would be supplied with other ropes if they were not sufficient, was negligent.-Kellerman v. Kansas City Long-Distance Telephone Co., 176 S. W. 1059.

~234 (Mo.App.) Where an injury arises out of the master's negligence, the servant's knowledge of conditions will not preclude him from recovering, unless the danger is so glaring that he could not hope to escape by the exercise of reasonable care.--Barnard v. Waverly Brick & Coal Co., 176 S. W. 1108.

239 (Mo.App.) In a servant's action for injuries by a woodcutting machine not guarded as required by Rev. St. 1909, § 7828, plaintiff held not guilty of contributory negligence in failing to stop the machine before adjusting a drill. Hughes v. D. E. Marshall Contracting & Mfg. Co., 176 S. W. 534.

218 (Ky.) Warning by foreman to men held not to place youthful and inexperienced servant on same footing as adult servant with knowl-245 (Mo.App.) Where a servant made a edge of danger in respect to assumption of car coupling in the manner the master inrisk.-Yellow Poplar Lumber Co. v. Bartley, structed him, recovery cannot be refused be176 S. W. 201. cause it could have been made in a different manner.-Davis v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 176 S. W. 1067.

218 (Mo.App.) A master may assume that an adult accepting employment is competent to perform the work, and that he assumes the dangers ordinarily incident to the job.-Batesel v. American Zinc, Lead & Smelting Co., 176 S. W. 446.

em

221 (Tex.Civ.App.) A promise by an ployer not to subject an employé to danger in the future if he would hazard it is not a promise by the employer to assume the risk of the danger.-Missouri, O. & G. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Black, 176 S. W. 755.

222 (Ky.) Employé in obeying foreman's order held not to have assumed risk unless danger was appreciated and was such that a person of ordinary prudence would have refused to encounter it.-Yellow Poplar Lumber Co. v. Bartley, 176 S. W. 201.

224 (Ky.) A shoveler in a railroad ash pit held to have assumed the risk of heat prostration by working on a hot night and drinking large quantities of ice water.-Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Williams, 176 S. W. 1186.

226 (Ky.) Where the dangerous condition of the place of work was created by a negligent act of the foreman after the work was begun, the employé did not assume the risk if he did

(H) Actions.

2504 [New, vol. 15 Key-No. Series]

(Mo.App.) In servant's action for personal injury in plant located in Kansas, it was immaterial that cause of action arose there, as there is no substantial difference between doctrines of assumption of risk laid down by its courts and by courts of this state.-Whelan v. United Zinc & Chemical Co., 176 S. W. 704.

25034 [New, vol. 16 Key-No. Series] tion under Workmen's Compensation Act Kan. (Mo.App.) Statement of employer's elec8 44, held not required to be in any precise or technical form, or to have the same formality as a deed or instrument transferring property.Piatt v. Swift & Co., 176 S. W. 434.

Under Workmen's Compensation Act Kan. § 44, affirmative evidence of officer's authority to make and file employer's election held not required in view of evidence as to posted notices

of election.-Id.

254 (Ky.) Where plaintiff servant elected to proceed under the federal Employers' Liability Act, instead of under the state law, the court properly dismissed the action as against two

defendants who were coemployés of plaintiff.-284 (Ky.) Evidence held sufficient to take Thompson v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co., 176 S. W. 1006.

to the jury the question whether the employé was engaged in work required of him by his employer, when he was killed.-Ligon's Adm'r v. Evansville Rys. Co., 176 S. W. 968.

258 (Ark.) In an action against a lumber company for death of its engineer crushed beneath a log which rolled from one of its cars 285 (Mo.App.) In servant's action for perwhile loading, evidence held insufficient to show negligence on the part of the servants of the defendant loading the car.-Carnahan-Allport Lumber Co. v. Puckett, 176 S. W. 320.

sonal injury while drawing off residue from retort in nitric acid plant, evidence held to make the question whether defendant's negligence in leaving débris in the retort was the proximate cause of the accident a question for the jury.Whelan v. United Zinc & Chemical Co., 176 S. W. 704.

258 (Mo.App.) A petition, in an action by a hostler crushed between two cars, held not defective in failing to allege in terms that the motorman knew of the hostler's position.-Davis 286 (Ark.) In an action for injuries to a v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 176 S. W. 1067. railroad employé, evidence held to entitle the de264 (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence of the absence fendant to have the question of its negligence of foot brake and fender on the machine which submitted to the jury, notwithstanding the preinjured plaintiff held admissible under the plead- sumption created by Acts 1911, p. 57, § 2.-St. ings.-Magnolia Paper Co. v. Duffy, 176 S. W. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Ingram, 176 S. W.

89.

267 (Ky.) In an action for the death of a street railway employé, while working on the cars of another company, evidence that other employés engaged exclusively in operating such cars were paid by the employing company held admissible.-Ligon's Adm'r v. Evansville Rys. Co., 176 S. W. 968.

270 (Mo.App.) Evidence that the state factory inspector called an employer's attention to a set screw on a shafting that should be guarded several weeks before an employé was killed thereby was admissible to show notice to the employer.-Daniels v. Goeke, 176 S. W. 301.

692.

286 (Ky.) Evidence held sufficient to go to the jury on the issue of the employer's liability for failure to employ a sufficient number of men.-Central Kentucky Natural Gas Co. v. Salyer, 176 S. W. 183.

286 (Ky.) In action by an employé injured while getting a cant hook to loosen a log, evidence held to make question for jury whether the foreman directed him to loosen the log.Yellow Poplar Lumber Co. v. Bartley, 176 S. W. 201.

286 (Ky.) In an action for injuries to a railroad employé, caused by a rail, which he was helping to load onto a car, falling on his foot, evidence held sufficient to take to the jury the question of the master's negligence.-Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co. v. Gardner, 176 S. W. 351.

270 (Mo.App.) In servant's action for injury from splashing of residue from retort in nitric acid plant as it was being drawn off into a buggy or tank, evidence as to kind of buggy used in other plants held admissible on question of defendant's reasonable care.-Whelan v. Unit-286 (Ky.) Under evidence showing negli ed Zinc & Chemical Co., 176 S. W. 704. gence in a carpenter's action against a railroad 276 (Tex.Civ.App.) In an action by a wid- company for injuries received while working on an extension to repair shops, held error to direct ow for death of her husband, killed on a merry- a verdict for defendant.-Thompson v. Cincingo-round in the course of his employment, evi-nati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co., 176 S. W. 1006. dence held insufficient to show that the failure of the employer to supply a certain safety de-286 (Mo.App.) Evidence in a servant's acvice was the proximate cause of the accident.tion for personal injury while operating a Hutcherson v. Amarillo St. Ry. Co., 176 S. W. machine for baling loose scrap wire, resulting in the loss of part of two fingers, held not to make a prima facie case, but to justify judg ment of nonsuit.-Piorkowski v. A. Leschen & Sons Rope Co., 176 S. W. 258.

856.

278 (Ky.) Evidence held to support jury finding that place where youthful and inexperienced servant was directed to go by foreman was dangerous and that the master knew or ought to have known this.-Yellow Poplar Lumber Co. v. Bartley, 176 S. W. 201.

286 (Mo.App.) Under Rev. St. 1909, § 7828, requiring dangerous belting and shafting to be guarded, when possible, it is a question for the jury whether the machinery in question 278 (Ky.) In an action for the death of a could have been safely and securely guarded street railway employé, evidence held to show without materially interfering with its effithat the place of work was not reasonably safe. ciency.-Daniels v. Goeke, 176 S. W. 301. -Ligon's Adm'r v. Evansville Rys. Co., 176 S.286 (Mo.App.) In servant's action for inju

W. 968.

278 (Mo.App.) In an action for the death of a mill employé, evidence held to show that a set screw on a shafting which caused the accident could have been and should have been guarded, under Rev. St. 1909, § 7828.-Daniels v. Goeke, 176 S. W. 301.

278 (Mo.App.) Evidence in an action for the death of a servant held to show that the master had actual or constructive notice of the danger to inexperienced servants from their use of dynamite, so as to require that they should be warned.-Batesel v. American Zinc, Lead & Smelting Co., 176 S. W. 446.

ry to his eye from splashing of residue from retort in nitric acid plant, evidence held to make defendant's negligence in leaving débris in the retort a question for the jury.-Whelan v. United Zinc & Chemical Co., 176 S. W. 704.

286 (Mo.App.) In an action by a hostler crushed between two cars, which were being coupled, evidence of the motorman's negligence held sufficient to go to the jury.-Davis v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 176 S. W. 1067.

[blocks in formation]

286 (Mo.App.) Whether such precautions as a reasonably prudent man would have taken to have avoided the caving in of the trench in which plaintiff was working held for the jury.-Barnard v. Waverly Brick & Coal Co., 176 S. W. 1108.

281 (Ky.) In an action for the death of a street railway employé, evidence held to show that deceased had no knowledge of the danger.— Ligon's Adm'r v. Evansville Rys. Co., 176 S. W.286 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where a minor employé 968.

281 (Mo.App.) Evidence held to warrant a finding that the deceased servant, because of lack of skill and experience, and not being warned, did not appreciate the danger he ran from using dynamite.-Batesel v. American

was injured by having his hand caught in the rollers of a printing machine that had no foot brake nor fender, whether defendant had used reasonable care in furnishing such machine was for the jury.-Magnolia Paper Co. v. Duffy, 176 S. W. 89.

That a machine whereby an employé is in

of business does not as matter of law, exonerate | no instruction on such subject had been given.the employer for liability for injuries.-Id. Peerless Coal Co. v. Copenhaver, 176 S. W. 1002.

288 (Ky.) Whether the danger of obeying an order was appreciated by an employé and 296 (Mo.App.) An instruction conditioning was such that a person of ordinary prudence plaintiff's right to recover on his exercise of would have refused to encounter it was a ques- ordinary care covered the element of contribtion for the jury.-Yellow Poplar Lumber Co. utory negligence.-Barnard v. Waverly Brick v. Bartley, 176 S. W. 201. & Coal Co., 176 S. W. 1108.

288 (Mo.App.) In servant's action for injury to his eye from splashing of liquid being drawn from retort in nitric acid works to buggy or tank, evidence held to make his assumption of risk a question for the jury.-Whelan v. United Zinc & Chemical Co., 176 S. W. 704.

action for injuries to an employé, held not to 297 (Tex. Civ.App.) A special verdict, in an show contributory negligence.-Denison Cotton Mill Co. v. McAmis, 176 S. W. 621.

A special verdict held not to show that plaintiff assumed the risk.-Id.

297 (Tex.Civ.App.) A special verdict in an action for injuries to an employé held a finding that he understood and appreciated the danger and assumed the risk.-Missouri, O. & G. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Black, 176 S. W. 755.

288 (Mo.App.) That the injured employé had made no complaint and received no express assurance that the trench which caved in was safe held not to charge him with assumption of risk, as a matter of law, where he was working under the directions of a foreman.-Barnard IV. LIABILITIES FOR INJURIES TO v. Waverly Brick & Coal Co., 176 S. W. 1108. Where, in an employé's action for injuries, the evidence as to whether plaintiff assumed the risk is such that reasonable minds might differ thereon, such question is for the jury. -Id.

289 (Ky.) In an action for injuries to a railroad employé, caused by a rail, which he was helping to load onto a car, falling on his foot, evidence held not to show that the servant was negligent as a matter of law.-Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co. v. Gardner, 176 S. W. 351.

THIRD PERSONS.

(B) Work of Independent Contractor. 315 (Tex.Civ.App.) Though injury resulted from the failure of the contractor of a street railway company to comply with an ordinance prohibiting depressions between tracks, the street railway company cannot be held negligent. Rinker v. Galveston-Houston Electric Ry. Co.,

176 S. W. 737.

319 (Tex.Civ.App.) Owner of realty employing contractor to erect building thereon, held not to have contracted for such an inherently dangerous piece of work as to render the contractor in running into plaintiff with him liable for the negligent act of a servant of a wheelbarrow.-Wilson v. Crutcher, 176 S. W. 625.

(C) Actions.

289 (Mo.App.) It is not negligence, as a matter of law, for a mill foreman to attempt to replace a belt on a pulley without stopping the machinery.-Daniels v. Goeke, 176 S. W. 301. Where an employé's duties required him to adjust the belting on a shaft which he could not get around or under, it was not negligence, 331 (Tenn.) Defendant street railway comas a matter of law, for him to step over the pany held liable in exemplary damages to shaft.-Id. plaintiff tortiously assaulted by its night watchman while endeavoring to extricate his automobile from an excavation opened by the defendant.-Memphis St. Ry. Co. v. Stratton,

The fact that an employé attempted to replace a belt without stopping the machinery did not show him negligent, as a matter of law, for choosing a dangerous rather than a safe way to do the work.-Id.

176 S. W. 105.

MAXIMS.

MEASURE OF DAMAGES.

289 (Mo.App.) Where the operator of a See Equity, 65. woodcutting machine was injured while attempting to adjust a rapidly revolving drill in an emergency, endangering his own safety, the question of contributory negligence was for the See Damages, 100-124. jury.-Hughes v. D. E. Marshall Contracting & Mfg. Co., 176 S. W. 534.

MECHANICS' LIENS.

VII. ENFORCEMENT.

289 (Mo.App.) In servant's action for inju ry from splashing of residue being drawn from retort in nitric acid works to buggy or tank, evi-247 (Mo.App.) A materialman, who prodence held to make his contributory negligence a question for the jury.-Whelan v. United Zinc & Chemical Co., 176 S. W. 704.

289 (Mo.App.) In an action by a street car hostler crushed between two cars, held, that the question of his contributory negligence was for the jury.-Davis v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 176 S. W. 1067.

Where a motorman in charge of the car which was being backed to couple to another was bound to obey the hostler's order, the hostler is not guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law in going between the cars, where he directed that the motorman should back slowly.-Id.

289 (Mo.App.) Where, in an employé's action for injuries, the evidence as to whether plaintiff was contributorily negligent is such that reasonable minds might differ thereon, such question is for the jury.-Barnard v. Waverly Brick & Coal Co., 176 S. W. 1108.

291 (Ky.) In an action for injuries to a miner, it was error to refuse a concrete instruction as to his duty to remove loose slate, where

cured a mechanic's lien on the new portion of a building which was enlarged and remodeled by a lessee, held not entitled to remove the new part, where to do so would practically destroy the entire building.-Orear v. Dierks Lumber Co., 176 S. W. 467.

of

VIII. INDEMNITY AGAINST LIENS. 317 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where an owner land requires of his contractor a bond binding him and his surety to pay all debts contracted for materials, materialmen may sustain an action against the contractor and the surety upon the bond.-General Bonding & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Waples Lumber Co., 176 S. W. 651.

Contractor's surety bond held to run only to sion evidencing such undertaking, it could not the owner, so that, where there was no provibe sued upon by materialmen, directly or through the owner, as trustee, for their benefit. Id.

MENTAL SUFFERING.

See Libel and Slander, 119; Telegraphs and Telephones, 53, 68.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »