INJURIES TO EMPLOYEES 179 



distant from where he stood was held not guilty of contribu- 

 tory negligence. l 



The negligence of a master may consist in the operation 

 of defective or unnecessarily dangerous machinery, or in the 

 assigning of an inexperienced man, who is ignorant of the 

 danger involved, to a work that requires unusual skill or 

 precaution. In a case in which a new employee in a saw- 

 mill was injured by stepping into a hole in the floor, the 

 court held that evidence that the mill was constructed in the 

 customary manner of mills in that region was competent 

 but not conclusive evidence in rebuttal of an allegation of 

 negligent or defective construction. 2 A railroad employee 

 injured through the breaking of the side stakes on a car used 

 for the transportation of logs was allowed to recover for 

 the injury on the ground that it was the duty of the railroad 

 company to have the transportation equipment in proper 

 condition to prevent such accidents. :i 



An employee who was unexpectedly directed to go upon a 

 pile of lumber and received an injury because of the de- 

 fective condition in which the lumber had been piled through 

 negligence imputable to his employer was held not to have 

 assumed the risk of the accident. 4 



On the other hand, a man of mature years, who had been 

 a carpenter for ten years and had worked on circular saws 

 for three years, was held to have assumed the risk of an 

 injury on a saw that caused his death, even though evidence 

 were offered that guards were sometimes used as a pre- 

 caution against the occurrence of just such an accident; 5 

 and an employee, accustomed to working about a main saw 

 in a mill, who was injured within two hours after being 

 placed at work on a trimming saw in the same room was held 



1. Moore v. Lbr. Co. (La.) 29 So. 990. 



2. Nyback v. Champagne Lbr. Co. 109 Fed. 782. 



3. Port Ulakely Mill Co. v. Garret!, 97 Fed. 537; Of. Lynn v. Andrim Lbr. Co. 



(La.) 29 So. S74; and Simpson v. Unfit-Id Lbr. Co. 131 N. C. 51S, 42 S. E. 939 

 (Both holding liability of operators of losing railroad somewhat restricted), 

 and Fowles v. Brings, (Mich.) 74 N. W. 1040 in which a shipper who improperly 

 loaded a car with lumber was hold not liable to injuries to a brakoman resulting 

 from the negligent, loading, since shipper owed no legal duty to the brakoman 

 employed by the railroad.) 



4. Millard v. Street Ry. Co. (Mass.) 53 N. K. 900, Cf. Spieer v. Boice, (N. J.) 49 



Atl. 441, (Lumber dealer liable for injury to customer caused by faulty stairway 

 in lumber shed.) 



5. Tenanty v. Boston Mfg. Co. (Mass.) 49 N. E. 054; Cf. L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Semonis 



(Ky.) 51 S. W. C12, (Carpenter injured by splintery lumber, could have known 

 danger, took own risk.) 



