192 LIABILITY OF MASTER TO HIS SERVANT. 



State of repair and not overloaded, but it was not alleged 

 that tlie master knew of the defect. It was held that the 

 action was not maintainable, (ct) Lord Abinger in that case 

 observed: — "The mere relation of the master and the servant 

 never can imply an obligation on the part of the master to 

 take more care of the servant than he may reasonably 

 be expected to do of himself ... In fact, to allow this sort 

 of action to prevail would be an encouragement to the ser- 

 vant to omit that diligence and caution which he is in duty 

 bound to exercise on behalf of his master to protect him 

 against the misconduct or negligence of others who serve 

 him, and which diligence and caution, wliile they protect the 

 master, are a much better security against any injury the 

 servant may sustain by the negligence of others engaged 

 under the same master than any recourse against his master 

 for damages could possibly afford." Nor is the master liable 

 if the servant is in full knowledge of the risk he 

 encounters, or neglects to take proper precautions for his 

 own safety. (6) And where the master promises to remove 

 the danger, and induces the servant to continue working in 

 face of the danger, it is a question of circumstances whether 

 the servant can or cannot recover ;(c) but where a horse, 

 alleged to be dangerous and unfit for work, was supphed to 

 a servant who, induced by the master's promises to procure 

 a horse fit for its work, to continue working it, was injured, 

 Lord Justice-Clerk Inglis observed : — " If a servant, in the 

 face of manifest danger chooses to go on wuth his work, he 

 does so at his own risk, and not at the risk of his master. 

 The averments of the pursuer as to the condition of the 

 horse are such as if true would have entitled him to refuse 

 to continue working; and I cannot, in such circumstances, 

 allow the servant to say to his master, ' I went on at your 



(a) Priestly v. Fowler, 1S37, 3 M. and W. 1 ; liilci/ v. Baxendalc, 1S61, 30 L.J. 

 Ex. 87. 



(b) See cases cited in § 164. 



(c) Uolmes v. Clarl:e, 1862, 31 L.J. Ex. 356; see also § 164. 



