178 PREPARATION AND MANUFACTURE 



in the construction and operation of them, it has been held 

 that they are not liable for injuries to employees or to others 

 to the same extent as the operators of a common carrier 

 railroad. 1 



130. An Employer's Liability for Injuries to Em- 

 ployees. Under the principles of the common law as ap- 

 plied to the relationship of master and servant, an employer 

 is liable for injuries suffered by an employee in the regular 

 course of his employment unless the injuries have resulted 

 from the carelessness or other fault of the employee, or it be 

 established that the employee understood fully the danger 

 to which he was exposed in the employment and thus vol- 

 untarily assumed the risk incident to the employment. 

 However, the employer is not liable as an insurer, but is 

 merely required to exercise the reasonable care and pre- 

 caution against injuries to employees that the nature of the 

 employment demands and that would be exercised by an 

 employer of ordinary prudence. 2 The degree of care re- 

 quired in a business of peculiar hazard is greater than that 

 required in a less hazardous employment, 3 but the basis 

 of liability in all cases is the negligence of the employer. 4 



If the direction of the work be delegated by the master 

 to an agent, the master will be liable for any injury to an 

 employee through the fault of such agent, the same as if he 

 had himself been in direct charge of the work and had been 

 remiss in his legal duty. 5 



The master is liable only for injuries that are received 

 while the servant is acting within the scope of his employ- 

 ment. 6 But an employee who, on his way to discharge 

 a directed duty, stopped in an open thoroughfare of a saw- 

 mill to exchange remarks with a fellow employee concerning 

 the operation of a part of the machinery of the milV and was 

 there injured by the breaking of a belt on a pulley eight feet 



1. Lynn v. Andrim Lbr. Co. (La.) 29 So. 874; Simpson v. Enfleld Lbr. Co. 131 N. C. 

 518. 42 S. E. 939. 



2. Babcock Bros. Lbr. Co. v. Johnson, 120 Ga. 1030, 48 S. E. 438; Bouck v. Jackson 



Sawmill Co. 49 S. W. 472, 20 Ky. L. Rep. 1542; Eagan v. Sawyer Lbr. Co. 94 

 Wis. 137, 68 N. W. 756; Olsen v. North Pacific Lbr. Co. 100 Fed. 384. 



3. See Bessemer Land etc. Co. v. Campbell, 121 Ala! 50, 25 So. 793, 77 Am. St. Rep. 



17; Galveston etc. R. Co. v. Gormley, (Tex. Civ. App. 1894) 27 S. W. 105. 



4. Knight v. Cooper, 36 W. Va. 232, 14 S. E. 999. 



5. Evans v. Louisiana Lbr. Co. Ill La. 534, 35 So. 736. 



6. Undstrand v. Delta Lbr. Co. 65 Mich. 254, 32 N. W. 424. 



