§ 3. Provided he has Knowledge or the Means of Knowledge of Such Risk. Most of the decisions annex to the previous statement of doctrine the proviso that

36 N. E. Rep. 572 (employee takes upon himself the ordinary hazards of the business as conducted under the system adopted by his employer): Doolittle v. Pfaff, 92 Ill. App. 301 (where a servant has sufficient capacity to appreciate the danger of the service, or had acquired the knowledge otherwise than by instruction from the master); Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Amos, 20 Ind. App. 378, 49 N. E. Rep. 854 (and if he is injured through want of due care on his part, yet without any failure of the master to furnish him with safe tools, the injury will be regarded as one the risk which he assumed); Linton Coal, etc., Co. v. Persons, 15 Ind. App. 69, 43 N. E. Rep. 651 (assumes the danger which naturally arises from the nature of the work to be performed, whether visible or invisible, known or unknown); Brown v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 64 Iowa 652, (presumed to contract with reference to the dangers); Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Coniff, 90 Ky. 560, 12 Ky. L. Rep. 545, 12 S. W. Rep. 543; Paland v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 44 La. Ann. 1003, 11 So. Rep. 707 (of which he had notice before voluntarily exposing himself); Dandie v. Southern, etc., R. Co., 42 La. Ann. 686, 7 So. Rep. 792; Kenny v. Shaw, 133 Mass. 501 (and his master is not responsible for an injury sustained by his obeying an order of another workman); Jones v. Manufacturing, etc., Co., 92 Me. 565, 43 Atl. Rep. 512 (an employee of mature years, and ordinary mental capacity and intelligence); Alcorn v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 108 Mo. 81; Schroeder v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 108 Mo. 322; Jackson v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 104 Mo. 448; Schaub v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 106 Mo. 74; Henry v. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 109 Mo. 488; Watson v. Kansas, etc., R. Co., 52 Mo. App. 366; Fugler v. Bothe, 117 Mo. 475; Renfro v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 86 Mo. 302; Carroll v. Interstate, etc., Co., 107 Mo. 653; O'Donnell v. Patton, 117 Mo. 13; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Soderburg, 50 Neb. 674, 70 N. W. Rep. 230; Foley v. Jersey City Electric Light Co., 54 N. J. L. 411, 24 Atl. Rep. 487; Kennedy v. Manhattan R. Co., 33 Hun (N. Y.), 457 (workman employed by a railroad company to stand in a dangerous] place to signal trains); Hudson v. Ocean Steamship Co., 110 N. Y. 625, 17 N. E. Rep. 342 (where the master furnishes adequate, safe, and usual appliances for the use of the servant); Gordon v. Reynold Card Man. Co., 47 Hun (N. Y.), 278, 14 N. Y. St.!Rep. 394; Roth v. Northern, etc., Lumbering Co., 18 Oreg. 205, 22 Pac. Rep. 842; Bemish v. Roberts, 143 Pa. St. 1, 28 W. N. C. (Pa.) 169, 22 Pitts. L. J. (N. S.), 1, 48 Phila. Leg. Int. 305, 21 Atl. Rep. 998; Couch v. Charlotte, etc., R. Co., 22 S. Car. 557 (section hand while pushing a hand-car under orders from the foreman, fell into a waterway, of which he was not specially warned, but which was properly constructed); Corbett v. Smith, 101 Tenn. 368, 47 S. W. Rep. 694 (including an increased risk arising during the performance of the work, where he is fully aware thereof, and does not rely upon a promise to remedy the danger); Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Gower, 85 Tenn. 465 (risk of injury from lumber so loaded that the ends projected over the end of the car); International, etc., R. Co. v. Haster, 64 Tex. 401 (railroad section hand cannot complain of being ordered out to work on a foggy day, but assumes risk); Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Kizziah, 86 Tex. 81, 23 S. W. Rep. 578; reversing 4 Tex. Civ. App. 356, 22 S. W.

Rep. 110, 26 S. W. Rep. 242 (assumes not only the risks which are necessarily incident to the business he has undertaken to perform, but also such as commonly attend it); Texas, etc., R. Co. v. King, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 290, 37 S. W. Rep. 34 (assumes all the risk incident to the employment, and not merely the risk of such secret defects as could not be discovered by the employer by ordinary diligence, and those which were open to common observation); H. S. Hopkins Bridge Co. v. Burnett, 85 Tex. 16, 19 S. W. Rep. 886 (injury from the chipping of a hammer, all such hammers being liable to chip); Mayton v. Sonnefield (Tex. Civ. App.), 48 S. W. Rep. 608 (no official Rep.) assumes only such risks as are naturally and necessarily incident to the work in which he is engaged); Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Somers, 78 Tex. 439, 14 S. W. Rep. 779; Reese v. Wheeling, etc., R. Co., 42 W. Va. 333, 26 S. E. Rep. 204 (whether the employment be dangerous or not); Davis v. Nuttalsburg Coal Co., 34 W. Va. 500, 12 S. E. Rep. 539 (assumes all the ordinary risks of his employment whether it is dangerous or not); Oliver v. Ohio River R. Co., 42 W. Va. 703, 26 S. E. Rep. 444 (and if he willfully encounters dangers that are known to him or are notorious, the master is not responsible for an injury occasioned thereby); Johnson v. Chesapeake, etc.. R. Co., 36 W. Va. 73, 14 S. E. Rep. 432 (where the master is guilty of no negligence); Knight v. Cooper, 36 W. Va. 232, 14 S. E. Rcp. 999 (assumes all the ordinary risks of his employment, though it be dangerous in its nature); Hoffman v. Dickinson, 31 W. Va. 142, 6 S. E. Rep. 53; Red River Line v. Cheatham, 60 Fed. Rep. 517, 23 U. S. App. 19, reversing 56 Fed. Rep. 248; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Minnick, 6 C. C. A. 387, 57 Fed. Rep. 362 (where there is no defect of machinery or unknown hazards; Carpenter v. Mexican Nat. R. Co., 39 Fed. Rep. 315, 17 Wash. L. Rep. 630, 6 Rail. & Corp. L. J. 327.

3 Hazelhurst v. Brunswick Lumber Co., 94 Ga. 535, 19 S. E. Rep. 756; Wabash, etc., R. Co. v. Thompson, 15 Ill. App. 117; Salem-Bedford Stone Co. v. Hubbs (Ind. App.), 38 N. E. Rep. 538; Staldter v. Huntington, 153 Ind. 354, 55 N. E. Rep. 88; Guedelhofer v. Ernsting, 22 Ind. App. 188, 53 N. E. Rep. 113; Diamond Plate-Glass Co. v. Dehority (Ind.), 40 N. E. Rep. 681; Kentucky, etc., Bridge Co. v. Eastman, 7 Ind. App. 514, 34 N. E. Rep. 835; Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Spaulding, 21 Ind. App. 323, 52 N. E. Rep. 410; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Young, 4 Kan. App. 219, 45 Pac. Rep. 963; Quigley v. Thomas G. Plant Co., 165 Mass. 368, 43 N. E. Rep. 205; Connors v. Morton, 160 Mass. 333, 35 N. E. Rep. 860; Allard v. Hildreth, 173 Mass. 26, 52 N. E. Rep. 1061, 5 Am. Neg. Rep. 610; Rohrabacher v. Woodward, 124 Mich. 125, 82 N. W. Rep. 797; Smith v. Tromanhauser, 63 Minn. 98, 65 N. W. Rep. 144; Dale v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 63 Mo. 455, 459; Loonam v. Brockway, 28 How. Pr. (N. Y.), 472, 3 Robt. (N. Y.), 74; Hart v. Naumburg, 123 N. Y. 641, 23 N. Y. St. Rep. 607, 25 N. E. Rep. 385 reversing 50 Hun (N. Y.), 392, 21 N. Y. St. Rep. 951; Cowhill v. Roberts, 71 Hun (N. Y.), 127, 54 N. Y. St. Rep. 219, 24 N. Y. Supp. 533; Shadle v. Cleveland Electric, etc., Co., 22 Ohio C. C. 49, 12 Ohio C. D. 37.

4 Fordyce v. Stafford, 57 Ark. 503, 22 S. W. Rep. 161; Moline Plow Co. v. Anderson, 19 Ill. App. 417, affirmed, 24 Ill. App. 364, 38 Ill. App. 537 (tool so ob

viously defective that no prudent person would have used it); Illinois River Paper Co. v. Albert, 49 Ill. App. 365; United States Rolling Stock Co. v. Chadwick, 35 Ill. App. 474 (continuing to operate an obviously defective machine); McBride v. Indianapolis Frog Co., 5 Ind. App. 482, 32 N. E. Rep. 579; Day v. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 137 Ind. 206, 36 N. E. Rep. 854 (could easily have seen it if he had looked); Lebanon v. McCoy, 12 Ind. App. 500, 40 N. E. Rep. 700; O'Neal v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 132 Ind. 110, 31 N. E. Rep. 669; Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. McDowell, 16 Ky. L. Rep. 24 S. W. Rep. 607 (not to be reported); Jenkins v. Maginnis Cotton Mills, 51 La. Ann. 1011, 25 So. Rep. 643 (assumes the risk incident to his choice of the method which, in view of certain unusual conditions which he had himself brought about the day previous, is obviously dangerous, where there are other safe methods which might be adopted, although he is not informed of the danger); Carlson v. Sioux Falls Water Co., 5 S. Dak., 402, 59 S. W. Rep. 217; Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Lempe, 59 Tex. 19; Southern, etc., R. Co. v. Lasch, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 68, 21 S. W. Rep. 563 (and the servant was not induced to remain in the service by the promise of the master to repair the source of danger); Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. Sparrow, 98 Va. 630, 2 Va. Sup. Ct. Rep. 526, 37 8. E. Rep. 302; Hencke v. Ellis, 110 Wis. 532, 86 N. W. Rep. 171; Holt v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 94 Wis. 596, 69 N. W. Rep. 352; Hazen v. West Superior Lumber Co., 91 Wis. 208, 64 N. W. Rep. 857; Everhard v. Diamond Match Co., 98 Fed. Rep. 555; Goldthwait v. Haverhill, etc.. R. Co., 160 Mass. 554, 36 N. E. Rep. 486 (had ample opportunity to observe it); Nealand v. Lynn, etc., R. Co., 173 Mass. 42, 53 N. E. Rep. 137; McIntire v. White, 171 Mass. 170, 50 N. E. Rep. 524; Gibbons v. British, etc., Steam Nav. Co., 175 Mass. 212, 55 N. E. Rep. 987; Smith v. Beaudry, 175 Mass. 286, 56 N. E. Rep. 596 (held that the defects were obvious to a person of ordinary intelligence, and that plaintiff, having long been familiar with the work, and having had several month's experience, assumed the risk); Hoard v. Blackstone Man. Co., 177 Mass. 69, 58 N. E. Rep. 180; De Souza v. Stafford, 155 Mass. 476, 30 N. E. Rep. 81; Brady v. Ludlow Man. Co., 154 Mass. 468, 28 N. E. Rep. 901; Goddard v. McIntosh, 161 Mass. 253, 37 N. E. Rep. 169; Cooms v. Fitchburg R. Co., 156 Mass. 200, 30 N. E. Rep. 1140; Lothrop v. Fitchburg R. Co., 150 Mass. 423, 23 N. E. Rep. 227, 41 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 327; Storrs v. Michigan Starch Co., 126 Mich. 666, 8 Detroit Leg. N. 182, 86 N. W. Rep. 134 (plaintiff 22 years of age and iuexperienced, but all the conditions were open and obvious); Smith v. Peninsular Car Works, 60 Mich. 501, 27 N. W. Rep. 662, 1 Am. St. Rep. 542; Lamotte v. Boyce (Mich.), 2 Detroit Leg. N. 161, 63 N. W. Rep. 517 (defects were obvious and could not escape ordinarily careful observation); Fisher v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 77 Mich. 546, 43 N. E Rep. 926; Quick v. Minnesota Iron Co., 47 Minn. 361 50 N. W. Rep. 244; Doyle v. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., 42 Minn. 79, 43 N. W. Rep. 787, 41 Am. & Eng. R. Cas 376; Hefferen v. Northern, etc., R. Co., 45 Minn. 471, 48 N. E. Rep. 1; Manley v. Minneapolis Paint Co., 76 Minn. 169; Gojns v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 37 Mo. App 221 (unless his youth and inexperience excuse his ignorance of the danger); Wray v. Southern Electric Light, etc., Co., 68 Mo. App. 380; Shea v. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 76 Mo. App. 29, 1 Mo. App. 478; Keegan v. Kavanaugh, 62 Mo. 230; Nolan v. Shickle, 3 Mo. App. 300; Covey v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 86 Mo. 635; Union Stock Yards Co. v. Goodwin, 57 Neb. 138, 77 N. W. Rep. 357, 12 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. (N. S.) 502 (when

to the servant through observation, experience, familiarity with the surroundings, etc.,5

he knows of them or they are apparent and obvious to persons of his experience and understanding); Dehning v. Detroit Bridge Co. Works, 46 Neb. 556, 2 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. (N, S.), 645, 65 N. W. Rep. 186; Collins v. Laconia Car Co., 68 N. H. 196, 38 Atl. Rep. 1047; Dillingberger v. Weingartner, 64 N. J. L. 292, 45 Atl. Rep. 638 (and he is bound to use his eyes to see that which is open and apparent); Saunders v. Eastern Hydraulic Pressed Brick Co., 63 N. J. L. 554, 44 Atl. Rep. 630; Johnson v. Devoe Snuff Co., 62 N. J. 417, 5 Am. Neg. Rep. 191, 41 Atl. Rep. 936; Foley v. Jersey City Electric Light Co., 54 N. J. L. 411. 24 Atl. Rep. 487 (provided the master has not induced the servant to remain by a promise to remove the danger); Coyle v. Griffing Iron Co., 63 N. J. L. 609, 44 Atl. Rep. 665, 47 L. R. A. 147, affirming 62 N. J. L. 540, 41 Atl. Rep. 680; Robbins v. Brownville Paper Co., 65 N. Y. St. 955, 53 App. Div. (N. Y.), 641; Williams v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 116 N. Y. 628, 22 N. E. Rep. 111, 27 N. Y. St. Rep. 760, 41 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 254; Miller v. Grieme, 65 N. Y. Supp. 813, 53 App. Div. (N. Y.), 276; Johnson v. Oregon, etc., R. Co., 23 Oreg. 94, 31 Pac. Rep. 283; Ferguson v. Phoenix Cotton Mills, 106 Tenn. 236, 61 S. W. Rep. 53; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Lemon, 83 Tex. 143, 18 S. E. Rep. 331; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Schwabbe, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 573, 21 S. W. Rep. 706 (no amount of prudence on the part of an employee will relieve him of the risk of work undertaken by him which is patent and obviously dangerous); International, etc., R. Co. v. Story (Tex.), 62 S. W. Rep. 130; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Hohl (Tex. Civ. App.), 29 S. W. Rep. 1131; Sonnefield v. Mayton (Tex.), 39 S. W. Rep. 166, 1 Am. Neg. Rep. 711 (no off. rep.) (risk of danger from the negligent manner in which lumber is piled); Southwest Va. Imp. Co. v. Andrews, 86 Va. 270, 9 S. E. Rep. 1015, 17 Wash. L. Rep. 599, 6 Rail. & Corp. L. J. 252; Robare v. Seattle Traction Co., 24 Wash. 577, 64 Pac. Rep. 784; French v. First Ave. R. Co. (Wash.), 63 Pac. Rep. 1108; Relyea v. Tomahawk Pulp & Paper Co., 110 Wis. 307, 85 N. W. Rep. 960; Sladky v. Marietta Lumber Co., 107 Wis. 250, 83 N. W. Rep. 514; Herold v. Pfister, 92 Wis. 417, 66 N. W. Rep. 355; Osborne v. Lehigh Valley Coal Co., 97 Wis. 27, 71 S. W. Rep. 814 (adult employee is presumed to have known and appreciated all such risks of the employment as were open and obvious to a man of ordinary apprehension); Baker v. Barber Asphalt Pav. Co., 92 Fed. Rep. 117; English v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 24 Fed. Rep. 606 (although the master ordered the serv. ant into the place of danger); Anglin v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 60 Fed. Rep. 553; McGrath v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 60 Fed. Rep. 555; Anderson v. Winston, 31 Fed. Rep. 528; American Dredging Co. v. Walls, 84 Fed. Rep. 428, 55 U. S. App. 460, 28 C. C. A. 441.

5 Southern R. Co. v. Harbin, 110 Ga. 808, 36 S. E. Rep. 218; Clark County Cement Co. v. Wright, 16 Ind. App. 630, 45 N. E. Rep. 817; Big Creek Stone Co. v. Wolf, 138 Ind. 496, 27 Chic. Leg. N. 62, 38 N. E. Rep. 52; Kuhns v. Wisconsin, etc., R. Co., 70 Iowa, 561; Carey v. Sellers, 41 La. Ann. 500, 6 So. Rep. 813; Kenney v. Hingham Cordage Co., 168 Mass. 278, 47 N. E. Rep. 117; Leham v. Van Nostrand, 165 Mass. 233, 42 N. E. Rep. 1125; Kelley v. Calumet Woolen Co., 177 Mass. 128, 58 N. E. Rep. 182; Anderson v. Clark, 155 Mass. 368, 29 N. E. Rep. 589; Lynch v. Sagamore Man. Co., 143 Mass. 206; Wood v. Heiges, 83 Md. 257, 34 Atl. Rep. 872; Nephew v. Whitehead, 123 Mich. 255, 81 N. W. Rep. 1083 (knew as much about the danger as any

or capable of being known by the exercise of ordinary care and observation, or by such an inspection as the nature of the employment

one); La Pierre v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 99 Mich. 212, 58 N. E. Rep. 60; Rutherford,v. Chicago,etc., R. Co.,57 Minn.237,59 N. W. Rep. 302; Yazoo City Transp. Co. v. Smith, 78 Miss. 140, 28 So. Rep. 807; Fugler v. Bothe, 117 Mo. 475, 22 S. W. Rep. 1113; Collins v. Laconia Car Co., 68 N. H. 196, 38 Atl. Rep. 1047; Dube v. Gay, 69 N. H. 670, 46 Atl. Rep. 1049; Nourie v. Theobald, 68 N. H. 564, 41 Atl. Rep. 182 (exercised his own judgment, with full knowledge of the facts); Regan v. Palo, 62 N. J. L. 30, 5 Am. Neg. Rep. 63, 41 Atl. Rep. 364; Dillenberger v. Weingartner, 64 N. J. L. 292, 45 Atl. Rep. 638; De Forest v. Jewett, 23 Hun (N. Y.), 490; Cordelia v. Dwyer, 9 Misc. (N. Y.), 399, 61 N. Y. St. Rep. 690, 29 N. Y. Supp. 1073; Rohan v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 69 N. Y. St. Rep. 570, 59 App. Div. (N. Y.) 250; French v. Aulls, 72 Hun (N. Y.), 442, 54 N Y. St. Rep. 866, 25 N. Y. Supp. 188; Wooster v. Bliss, 90 Hun (N. Y.), 79, 35 N. Y. Supp. 126, 70 N. Y. St. Rep. 126; Fannessey v. Western U. Tel. Co. 6 Misc. (N. Y.), 322, 56 N. Y. St. Rep. 253, 26 N. Y. Supp. 796; Benda v. Keil, 63 N. Y. Supp. 971, 31 Misc. (N. Y.) 812; Standtke v. Conde Co., 53 App. Div. (N. Y.), 500, 65 N. Y. Supp. 942; Beucker v. Baker, 21 Ohio C. C. 540, 11 Ohio C. D, 642; Roth v. Northern, etc., Lumbering Co., 18 Oreg. 205, 22 Pac. Rep. 842; Weeklund v. Sonthern Oreg. Co. 20 Oreg. 595, 27 Pac. Rep. 260; Trainor v. Philadelphia, etc. R. Co., 137 Pa. St. 148, 20 Atl. Rep. 632; Kelley v. Baltimore, etc. R. Co. (Pa. P. 11 Atl. Rep. 659) (no off. rep.); Coal Creek Mining Co. v. Davis, 90 Tenn. 711, 18 S. W. Rep. 387;Gulf,etc. R. Co. v. Hernandez (Tex. Civ. App.), 45 S. W. Rep. 197 (no off. rep.); Hogele v. Wilson, 5 Wash. 160, 31 Pac. Rep. 469; Burnell v. West Side R. Co., 87 Wis. 387, 58 N. W. Rep. 772; Schultz v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 67 Wis. 616, 58 Am. Rep. 881; Maylor v. New York, etc., R. Co., 33 Fed. Rep. 801.

6 Denver Tramway Co. v. Nesbit, 22 Colo. 408, 45 Pac. Rep. 405, 4 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. (N. S.) 605; Western, etc., Co. v. Bradford, 113 Ga. 276, 38 S. E. Rep. 823; Goff v. Toledo, etc., R. Co., 28 Ill. App. 529 (holding that the law will infer knowledge of defects in machinery which the servant might have discovered by the exercise of ordinary care); Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Stevens, 80 Ill. App. 671; Stuart v. New Albany Man. Co., 15 Ind. App. 184, 43 N. E. Rep. 961: Pennsylvania Co. v. Witte, 15 Ind. App. 583, 43 N. E. Rep. 319, 3 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. (N. S.), 629; rehearing denied in 44 N. E. Rep. 377 (holding that a servant will be held to have known of dangerous defects which are discoverable by the exercise of ordinary care in discharging his duty); Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Quinn, 14 1nd. App. 554, 43 N. E. Rep. 240; Lumley v. Caswell, 47 Iowa, 159; Money v. Lower Vein Coal Co., 55 Iowa, 671 (and continues in the service without protest): Heath v. Whitebreast, etc., Coal Co., 65 Iowa, 737; Louisville, ete. N. R. Co. v. Miller, 15 Ky. L. Rep. 699. See Lasch v. Stratton, 101 Ky. 672; Holman v. Kemp, 70 Minn. 422, 73 N. W. Rep. 186, Smith v. Winona, etc., R. Co., 42 Minn. 87, 43 N. W. Rep. 968, 41 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 289; Alcorn v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 108 Mo. 81 (not only such risks as are incident to the business in which he engages and the duties he undertakes to perform, but also such risks as should become apparent to him by ordinary observation, or are readily discernable by

a person of his age and capacity when in the exercise of ordinary care, or where his means of knowledge are equal to those of the employer, or where he discovers the unusual risks and makes no complaint); Moore v. St. Louis Wire Co., 55 Mo. App. 491 (assumes all risks arising from defective appliances or which he knew, or which were so obvious as not to escape the observation of an ordinarily prudent person); Benjamin Atha, etc., Co. v. Costello (N. J.), 5 Am. Neg. Rep. 655, 42 Atl. Rep. 766 (no off, Rep.) Western U. Tel. Co. v. McMullen, 58 N. J. L. 155, 33 Atl. Rep. 384, 32 L. R. A. 351, 2 Am. & Eng. Corp.Cas. (N. S.),588 (assumes the ordinary risks of his employment, and also special risks known to him or which he could have known by the exercise of reasonable care and skill); Gielfield v. Browning, 9 Misc. (N. Y.), 98, 29 N. Y. Supp. 710; Wainright v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 11 Ohio C. D. 530; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Williams, 72 Tex. 159, 12 S. W. Rep. 172; Nix v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 82 Tex. 473, 18 S. W. Rep. 571; Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Garrett, 73 Tex. 262, 13 S. W. Rep. 62; Brockum v. Galveston, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 57 S. W. Rep. 919 (no off. rep.); Latremouille v. Bennington, etc., R. Co., 63 Vt. 336, 48 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 265, 22 Atl. Rep. 656; Nadau v. White River Lumber Co., 76 Wis. 120, 43 N. W. Rep. 1135; Haley v. Jump River Lumber Co., 81 Wis. 412, 51 N. W. Rep. 231, affirmed on rehearing in 51 N. W. Rep. 956; Mexican Cent. R. Co. v. Murray, 42 C. C. A. (U. S.), 334, 102 Fed. Rep. 264.

7 Wright v. Pacific Coast Oil Co. (Cal.), 53 Pac. Rep. 1080 (no off. rep.); Dartmouth Spinning Co. v. Achard, 84 Ga. 14, 10 S. E. Rep. 449, 6 L. R. A. 190; Roddy v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 104 Mo. 234; La Croy v. New York, etc., R. Co., 132 N: Y. 570 (he and his fellow brakeman having neglected to test the condition of the brakes before beginning the descent, though familiar with the road and the liability of the brakes to get out of order while such trains are moving over such grades); Flood v. Western U. Tel. Co., 131 N. Y. 603, 43 N. Y. St. Rep. 302, 30 N. E. Rep. 196 (telegraph company not liable for the death of a lineman caused by the breaking of a defective crossarm of a telegraph pole while he was resting his whole weight upon it, where he failed to make the proper inspection before climbing upon it); Cooper V. Butler, 103 Pa. St. 412 (it was the duty of the employee to inspect the tramway which he was required to operate and to report defects therein.)

8 Marbury Lumber Co. v. Westbrook, 121 Ala. 179, 25 So. Rep. 914; Davis v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 53 Ark. 117, 13 S. W. Rep. 801, 7 L. R. A. 283; Fisk v. Central Pac. R. Co., 72 Cal. 38, 13 Pac. Rep. 144; Mullin v. California Horseshoe Co., 105 Cal. 77, 38 Pac. Rep. 535; Foley v. California Horseshoe Co., 115 Cal. 184, 47 Pac. Rep. 42 (does not necessarily assume the increasing risk from a defective appliance, although he is aware thereof, and an adult with the same knowledge would assume such increased risk); Jones v. Roberts, 57 Ill. App. 56; Nelson Man. Co. v. Stol. zenburg, 59 Ill. App. 628 (does not assume the risk of putting a belt on a pully near running circular saws at the express direction of his superior, without warning of the danger); American Strawboard Co. v. Foust (Ind.), 39 N. E. Rep. 891: Evansville, etc., R Co. v. Maddux, 134 Ind. 571, 33 N. E. Rep. 345; rehearing denied in 34 N. E. Rep. 511; Anderson ▼ Illinois, etc., R. Co., 109 Iowa, 524, 80 N. W. Rep. 561; Dowling v. Allen, 6 Me. App. 195 (hidden dan

9

experience, and capacity;10 provided, that, in case he is young or inexperienced, the master has given him suitable warning and instruction; provided, also (in the opinion of some courts, variously expressed), not only that the source of danger was known or apparent, but also, that the risk proceeding from it was appreciated, or might have been appreciated by the exercise of ordinary care, and was so threatening that a person of ordinary prudence would not encounter it by remaining in the service; 12 provided, further,

ger); Sheetram v. Trexler Stave and Lumber Co., 13 Pa. Sup. Ct. 219; Kehler v. Schwenck, 151 Pa. 505, 31 W. N. C. 201, 31 Am. St. Rep. 777, 25 Atl. Rep. 130; Wolski v.Knapp Stout & Co. Co., 90 Wis. 178, 63 N. W. Rep. 87 (no presumption that a minor employee assumes the risk of an employment which has elements of danger not open and obvious to the inexperienced); Felton v. Girardy, 43 C. C. A. (U. S.), 439, 104 Fed. Rep. 127.

9 Nebauer v. Northern, etc., R. Co. (Minn.), 61 N. W. Rep. 912; Slacer v. Field Enginnering Co., 54 N. Y. St. Rep. 335, 4 Misc. (N. Y.), 493. 24 N. Y. Supp. 550; Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Renz (Tex. Civ. App.), 59 S. W. Rep. 280 (a charge in favor of defendant, excluding the issue of plaintiff's inexperience and want of knowledge of the danger, was properly refused); Hill v. Southern Pac. Co. (Utah), 63 Pac. Rep. 814; Thompson v. Edward P. Allis Co., 89 Wis. 523, 62 N. W. Rep. 527; Felton v. Girardy, 43 C. C. A. (U.S.), 439, 104 Fed. Rep. 127; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Miller, 43 C. C. A. (U. S.), 436, 104 Fed. Rep. 124. 10 McCarreagher v. Rogers, 120 N. Y. 526, 24 N. E. Rep. 812, 31 N. Y. St. Rep.. 595 (the knowledge of a child employed to operate a machine, of its dangerous or defective character, does not impose upon him absolutely the same degree of responsibility as it imposes upon an adult, but his responsibility depends upon his appreciation of and ability to comprehend the danger).

11 Davis v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 53 Ark 117, 13 S. W. Rep. 801, 7 L. R. A. 283; Fisk v. Central Pac. R. Co. 72 Cal. 38, 13 Pac. Rep. 144; Mullin v. California Horseshoe Co., 105 Cal. 77, 38 Pac. Rep. 535; Nelson Man. Co. v. Stolzenburg, 59 Ill. App. 528 (does not assume the risk of putting a belt on a pulley near running circular saws at the express direction of his superior, without warning of the danger); American Strawboard Co. v. Foust (Ind. App.), 39 N. E. Rep. 891; Evansville, etc., R. Co. v. Maddux, 134 Ind. 571, 33 N. E. Rep. 345, rehearing denied in 34 N. E. Rep. 511; Anderson v. Illinois, etc., R. Co., 109 Iowa, 524 80 N. W. Rep. 561; Slacer v. Field Engineering Co., 54 N. Y. St. Rep. 335, 4 Misc. (N. Y.), 493, 24 N. Y. Supp. 550; Kehler v. Schwenck, 151 Pa. 505, 31 W. N. C. 201, 31 Am. St. Rep. 777, 25 Atl. Rep. 130; Thompson v. Edward P. Allis Co., 89 Wis. 523, 62 N. W. Rep. 527; Felton v. Girardy, 43 C. C. A. (U. S.), 439, 104 Fed. Rep. 127: Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Miller, 43 C. C. A. (U. S.), 436, 104 Fed. Rep. 124.

12 Southern R. Co. v. Guyton, 122 Ala. 231, 25 So. Rep. 34; Bjorman v. Ft. Bragg Redwood Co., 104 Cal. 626, 38 Pac. Rep. 451; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Knapp, 176 Ill. 127, 52 N. E. Rep. 927, affirming 74 Ill. App. 148; Wierzbicky v. Illinois Steel Co., 94 Ill. App. 400 (it is a question of fact for the jury to determine

that after discovering the source of danger and the risk thereby incurred, the servant elects to remain in the service without objection or complaint, 18 unless he has apprised the master of the defect, as it is his duty to

whether the danger from the use of the appliance was so imminent and apparent that no man of ordinary prudence, having knowledge of it, would have incurred it); Howe v. Mederis, 82 Ill. App. 515; Batchelor v. Union Stock Yard, etc., Co., 88 Ill. App. 395 (instruction omitting this element erroneous); Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Merriman, 86 Ill. App. 454; Union Show Case Co. v. Blindauer, 75 Ill. App. 358, affirmed in 175 Ill. 325, 51 N. E. Rep. 709; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Kinnare, 76 Ill. App. 394; Stomne v. Hanford Produce Co., 108 Iowa, 137, 78 N. W. Rep. 841; Ashland Coal, etc.. R. Co. v. Wallace, 101 Ky. 626, 19 Ky. L. Rep. 849, 42 S. W. Rep. 744, rehearing denied in 43 S. W. Rep. 207, 19 Ky. L. Rep. 857; Faren v. Sellers, 39 La. Ann. 1011, 3 So. Rep. 363; Frye v. Bath, Gas & Electric Co., 94 Me. 17, 46 Atl. Rep. 804; Fitzgerald v. Connecticut River Paper Co., 155 Mass. 155, 45 Alb. L. J. 166, 29 N. E. Rep. 464; Wuotilla v. Duluth Lumber Co., 37 Minn. 153, 5 Am. St. Rep. 832, 33 N. W. Rep. 551; Russell v. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 32 Minn. 230; Sneda v. Libera, 65 Minn. 337, 68 N. W. Rep. 36; Cook v. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., 34 Minn. 45, 24 N. W. Rep. 311; Russell v. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 32 Minn. 230, 20 N. W. Rep. 147; Harriman v. Kansas City Star Co., 81 Mo. App. 124; Hurst v. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 163 Mo. 309, 63 S. W. Rep. 695; Soeder v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 100 Mo. 673, 13 S. W. Rep. 714; Donahol v. Kansas City, 136 Mo. 657, 38 S. W. Rep. 571; Compton v. Omaha, etc., R. Co., 82 Mo. App. 175; Watson v. Kansas, etc., Co., 52 Mo. App. 366; Berning v. Medart, 56 Mo. App. 443; Griffen v. Ithaca St. R. Co., 71 N. Y. Supp. 140, 62 App. Div. (N. Y.), 551; Davidson v. Cornell, 132 N. Y. 228, 43 N. Y. St. Rep. 887, 30 N. E. Rep. 573; Stager v. Troy Laundry Co., 38 Oreg. 480, 63 Pac. Rep. 645; Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Smith (Tex.), 57 S. W. Rep. 999; Craven v. Smith, 89 Wis. 119, 61 N. W. Rep. 317 (the true test being whether an ordinarily prudent person of his age and experience, under like circumstances, would have appreciated the danger and risk.) Opposing cases: More or less at variance with the doctrine of the foregoing text are the following cases: Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Kemper, 147 Ind. 561; Feely v. Pearson Cordage Co., 161 Mass. 426; Kohn v. McNulta, 147 U. S. 241, 37 L. Ed. 152; Detroit Crude-Oil Co. v. Grable, 36 C. C. A. 94, 94 Fed. Rep. 73; Norman v. Wabash R. Co., 22 U. S. App. 505, 62 Fed. Rep. 727, 10 C. C. A. 617; James B. Clow & Sons v. Boltz, 92 Fed. Rep. 572. 13 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Orr, 91 Ala. 548, 8 So. Rep. 360; Fordyce v. Edwards, 60 Ark. 438, 30 S. W. Rep. 758 (defect in locomotive engine discovered on the trip); Colorado Fuel, etc., Co. v. Cummings, 8 Colo. App. 541, 46 Pac. Rep. 875; Swift v. O'Neill, 187 Ill. 337, 58 N. E. Rep. 416, affirming 88 Ill. App. 162 (question for jury whether he assumed the risk); Ames v. Quigley, 75 Ill. App. 446; Munn v. L. Wolff Man. Co., 94 Ill. App. 122; Illinois, etc., R. Co. v. Neer, 31 Ill. App. 126; Buhle v. Harland, 37 Ill. App. 350; Morris v. Gleason, 4 Ill. App. 395; Chicago Packing, etc., Co. v. Rohan, 47 Ill. App. 640; Pennsylvania Co. v. Witte, 15 Ind. App. 583, 43 N. E. Rep. 319, 3 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. (N. S.), 629, rehearing denied in 44 N. E. Rep. 377; Sheets v. Chicago, etc., Coal R. Co. (Ind.), 39 N. E. Rep. 154; Perigo v. Chicago, etc., R

do, 14 and has been induced to remain in the

Co., 52 Iowa, 276; Meedham v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 85 Ky. 423, 3 S. W. Rep. 797; Norton v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 16 Ky. L. Rep. 846, 30 S. W. Rep. 599; Pollich v. Sellers, 42 La. Ann. 623, 7 So. Rep. 786; Smith v. Sellars, 40 La. Ann. 527, 4 So. Rep. 333; Conley v. American Exp. Co., 87 Me. 352, 32 Atl. Rep. 965; Gillen v. Patten, etc., R. Co., 93 Me. 80, 44 Atl. Rep. 361; Cunningham v. Bath Iron Works, 92 Me. 502, 43 Atl. Rep. 106; Feeley v. Pearson Cordage Co., 161 Mass. 426, 37 N. E. Rep. 368 (although he does not know the precise extent or character of the injury he is liable to sustain therefrom); Miner v. Connecticut River R Co., 153 Mass. 398; Sullivan v. India Man. Co., 113 Mass. 396; Mahoney v. Dore, 155 Mass. 513, 30 N. E. Rep. 366 (question for the jury whether servant assumed the risk); Goodridge v. Washington Mills Co., 160 Mass. 234, 35 N. E. Rep. 484; Adams v. Kansas, etc., Coal Co., 85 Mo. App. 486; Benham v. Taylor, 66 Mo. App. 308; Winkler v. St. Louis Basket, etc., Co., 137 Mo. 394, 38 S. W. Rep. 921; Price v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 77 Mo. 508; Porter v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 71 Mo. 66; Hamman v. Central Coal, etc., Co., 156 Mo. 232, 56 S. W. Rep. 1091 (whether he assumed the risk a question for a jury); Harney v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 80 Mo. App. 667, 2 Mo. App. Rep. 675 (evidence under which the question was properly submitted to the jury); Golden v. Seighardt, 33 App. Div. (N. Y.), 161, 53 N. Y. Supp. 460; Shields v. Robins, 3 App. Div. (N. Y.), 582, 73 N. Y. S. R. 708, 38 N. Y. Supp. 214; Fitzgerald v. Paper Co., 30 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.), 438, 62 N. Y. St. Rep. 597; Rafferty v. Toledo Traction Co., 19 Ohio C. C. 288, 10 Ohio C. D. 347 (question for a jury); Chaddick v. Lindsay, 5 Okla. 616, 49 Pac. Rep. 940; Marean v. New York, etc., R. Co., 167 Pa. St. 220, 31 Atl. Rep. 562; Grabowski v, Pennsylvania Steel Co., 2 Dauph. Co. Rep. 118; Bussey v. Charleston, etc., R. Co., 52 S. Car., 438, 11 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. (N. S.), 474, 30 S. E. Rep. 477 (question for the jury); Lasure v. Graniteville Man. Co., 18 S. Car., 275 (question for a jury); Fletcher v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 102 Tenn. 1, 6 Am. Neg. Rep. 204, 49 S. W. Rep. 739; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Bingle (Tex. Civ. App.), 29 S. W. Rep. 674; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Bryant (Tex. Civ. App.), 27 S. W. Rep. 825; Rogers v. Galveston City R. Co., 76 Tex. 502, 13 S. W. Rep. 540; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Myers, 55 Tex. 110; Oliver v. Ohio River R. Co., 42 W. Va. 703, 26 S. E. Rep. 444; Relyae v. Tomahawk Pulp & Paper Co., 110 Wis. 307, 85 N. W. Rep. 960; Powell v. Ashland Iron, etc., Co., 98 Wis. 35, 73 N. W. Rep. 573 (even though such danger results from the violation of some statutory requirement on the subject); Naylor v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 53 Wis. 661; Birmingham y. Petit, 21 D. C. 209, 21 Wash. L. Rep. 115; The Saratoga, 87 Fed. Rep. 349; Poll v. Hewitt (Q. B.), 23 Ont. Rep. 619. Contra: See Boyd v. Coal Co. (Ind. App.), 50 N. E. Rep. 368; Simpson v. Rubber Co., 80 Hun (N. Y.), 415, 30 N. Y. St. Rep. 339.

14 Thomas v. Bellamy, 126 Ala. 253, 28 So. Rep. 707; Limberg v. Glenwood Lumber Co., 127 Cal. 598, 60 Pac. Rep. 176; Pennsylvania Co. v. Lynch, 90 Ill. 333 (employee owes a duty to his employer and to his fellow employees to call attention to the defect); Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Merriman, 86 Ill. 454 (failure of employee to note and report defects is contributory negligence); Allerton Packing Co. v. Egan, 86 Ill. 253 (same doctrine); Illinois, etc., R. Co. v. Pummill, 58 Ill. App. 83; (same doctrine); East St. Louis Pack. Co. v. McElroy, 29 Ill. App. 504; Peoria, etc., R. Co. v. Hardwick, 48 Ill. App. 562;

service by the master's promise to repair it, as hereafter stated.15

§ 4. What Risks the Servant Does not Accept. -On the other hand, the servant does not accept the risks of latent, unseen, or obscured defects or dangers, such as the servant would not discover by the exercise of ordinary care and prudence, having reference to his situation, but such as the master ought to discover by exercising the duty of inspection which the law puts upon him to the end of seeing that the premises, tools and appliances, with respect to which the servant is required to labor are in a reasonably safe condition;16 Pennsylvania Co. v. Burgett, 7 Ind. App. 338, 33 N. E. Rep. 914; rehearing denied in 34 N. E. Rep. 650; Reitman v. Stolte, 12 Ind. 314, 22 N. E. Rep. 304. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Young, 4 Kan. App. 219, 45 Pac. Rep. 963; Mundle v. Hill Man. Co., 86 Me. 400; Cunningham v. Merrimac Paper Co., 163 Mass. 89, 39 N. E. Rep. 774; Leary v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 139 Mass. 580, 52 Am. Rep. 733; Fitzgerald v. Connecticut River Paper Co., 155 Mass. 155; Peppett v. Michigan, etc., R. Co., 119 Mich. 640, 6 Detroit L. N. 30; 78 N. W. Rep. 900; Chicago, etc., R. Co., v. McGinnis, 49 Neb. 649, 68 N. W. Rep. 1057; Johnson v. Devoe Snuff Co., 62 N. J. L. 417, 5 Am. Neg. Rep. 191, 41 Atl. Rep. 936; Recka v. Ocean S. S. Co., 3 Misc. (N. Y.), 526, 52 N. Y. St. Rep. 417, 23 N. Y. Supp. 3; Maitland v. Clearland, etc., R. Co., 7 N. P. (Ohio) 353; Gropp v. Carnegie Steel Co., 4 Pa. Super. Ct. 621, 40 W. N. C. (Pa.) 405; Lineoski v. Susquehanna Coal Co., 157 Pa. St. 153, 33 W. N. C. (Pa.), 204; 27 Atl. Rep. 577; New York, etc., R. Co. v. Lyons, 119 Pa. 324, 13 Atl. Rep. 205, 21 W. N. C. (Pa.), 277; Ross v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 2 McCrary (U.S.), 235 (duty to give notice of the negligence or incompetency of a fellow servant): Washington, etc., R. Co. v. McDade, 135 U. S. 554, 34 L. Ed. 235; 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1044; 42 Alb. L. J. 175; 18 Wash. L. Rep. 526.

15 Limberg v. Glenwood Lumber Co., 127 Cal. 598, 60 Pac. Rep. 176; Burlington, etc., R. Co. v. Liehe, 17 Colo. 280, 29 Pac. Rep. 175; Glass v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 41 Ill. App. 87; Illinois, etc., R. Co. v. Swisher, 53 Ill. App. 411; Legnard v. Lage, 57 Ill. App. 223; Morris v. Gleason, 4 Ill. App. 395 affirming 1 Ill. App. 510; Worden v. Humeston, etc., R. Co., 72 Iowa, 201, 33 N. W. Rep. 629 ("the rule is that where an employee voluntarily elects to incur a risk without promise of its removal, and which he need not incur, he assumes the risk"); Breckinridge, etc.. Syndicate v. Murphy, 18 Ky. L. Rep. 915, 38 S. W. Rep. 700 (not to be off. rep.); Wood v. Heiges, 83 Md. 257, 34 Atl. Rep. 872; Lewis v. New York, etc.. R. Co., 153 Mass. 73; Pauck v. St. Louis Dressed Beaf, etc, Co., 159 Mo. 467, 61 S. W. Rep. 806; Nugent v. Kauffman Mill Co., 131 Mo. 241, 33 S. W. Rep. 428; Recka v. Ocean S. S. Co., 3 Misc. (N. Y.), 526, 52 N. Y. St. Rep. 417, 23 N. Y. Supp. 3; Maitland v. Clearland, etc.. R. Co., 7 N. P. (Ohio), 353; Fick v. Jackson, 3 Super. Ct. (Pa.), 378, 39 W. N. C. (Pa.), 534; The Saratoga, 87 Fed. Rep. 349.

16 Illinois, etc., R. Co. v. Orr, 56 Ill. App. 260 (no notice of defect and no opportunity to inspect); Myhan v. Louisiana Electric Light, etc., Co., 41 La. Ann. 964, 6 So. Rep. 799, 7 L. R. A. 172, Faren v. Sellers,