133. See notes 1, 2. Limitation of Rule. See note 3. 134. j. BURDen of Proving ASSUMPTION OF RISK. — See notes 1, 2, 3 Co., 121 Wis. 503. See W. R. Trigg Co. v. Lindsay, 101 Va. 193. Compare Dupree v. Alexander, 29 Tex. Civ. App. 31. The doctrine that the employer must furnish the employee a safe place to work does not apply to a case where an employee is called upon with knowledge to do work which is inherently hazardous, such as repairing defects, or the like. The employee cannot recover for injuries received by reason of the very defect which he is employed to repair. Wahlquist v. Maple Grove Coal, etc., Co. 116 Iowa 720. Removal of Defective Telegraph Poles. A servant who is engaged in taking down defective telegraph poles assumes the dangers arising from their defective condition. Ewald v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 107 Ill. App. 294. 133. 1. Railroad Construction and Repairs. -Hurst v. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 163 Mo. 309. It has been held that an employee cannot recover on account of injuries received by reason of defects in the roadbed which he was employed to construct and make safe. Barley v. Southern Indiana R. Co., 30 Ind. App. 406. 2. Risks Assumed by Servants Repairing-Defective Bridge. Grayson-McLeod Lumber Co. v. Carter, (Ark. 1905) 88 S. W. Rep. 597. Setting Die on Press Which Is Not in Use. Kasadarian v. James Hill Mfg. Co., 130 Fed. Rep. 62. Clearing Railroad Yard Obstructed by Loose Rocks and Stones. Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Billingslea, (C. C. A.) 116 Fed. Rep. 335. Bracing Electric Wire Pole. - Kellogg v. Denver City Tramway Co., 18 Colo. App. 475. Replacing Defective Telegraph Poles. Saxton v. Northwestern Telephone Exch. Co., 81 Minn. 314. 3. Danger Increased by Master's Negligence. Nugent v. Cudahy Packing Co., 126 Iowa 517. 134. 1. Burden of Proof · United States. Hawley v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., (C. C. A.) 133 Fed. Rep. 150; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Jones, (C. C. A.) 123 Fed. Rep. 753. Alabama. — E. E. Jackson Lumber Co. v. Cunningham, 141 Ala. 206. Iowa.. Mace v. Boedker, 127 Iowa 721; Woolf . Nauman Co., (Iowa 1905) 163 N. W. Rep. 785; Shebeck v. National Cracker Co., 120 Iowa 414. New York. Dowd v. New York, etc., R. Co., 170 N. Y. 459; Rooney v. Brogan Constr. Co., 107 N. Y. App. Div. 258; Hunt v. Dexter Sulphite Pulp, etc.. Co., 100 N. Y. Ann. Div. 119; Devereux v. Utica Steam Cotton Mills, 84 N. Y. App. Div. 34: Allison v. Long Clove Trap Rock Co., 75 N. Y. App. Div. 267; Kueckel v. O'Connor, 73 N. Y. App. Div. 594. See Scheir v. Quirin, 77 N. Y. App. Div. 624, affirmed without opinion 177 N. Y. 568. North Carolina. Jones v. American Warehouse Co., 137 N. Car. 337, 138 N. Car. 546; Dorsett v. Clement-Ross Mfg. Co., 131 N. Car. 254. See Womble v. Merchants Grocery Co., 135 N. Car. 474. Texas. - Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Jones, 35 Tex. Civ. App. 584; Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Brown, 33 Tex. Civ. App. 589. See Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Stevens, 189 Ill. 226; Duerst v. St. Louis Stamping Co., 163 Mo. 607. It has been said that "the assumption of risk by virtue of his employment is a matter which inheres in plaintiff's case, and the question is sufficiently raised by the defendant's denial of negligence; but assumption of the risk arising from defendant's negligence, if negligence be established, can only be raised by an affirmative plea, and defendant assumes the burden of its proof." Sankey v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 118 Iowa 39. When the master on being sued for personal injuries by a servant interposes the defense that the servant had knowledge of the dangerous condition of the place to work which caused the injury, the burden is upon the master to prove knowledge on the part of the servant. Pressed Steel Car Co. v. Herath, 110 Ill. App. 596, affirmed 207 Ill. 576. 2. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Heerey, 203 Ill. 492; Chicago, etc., Stone Co. v. Nelson, 32 Ind. App. 355; Indiana Natural Gas, etc., Co. v. Vauble, 31 Ind. App. 370; Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Scott, 29 Ind. App. 519; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Lee, 29 Ind. App. 480; Indiana Bituminous Coal Co. v. Buffey, 28 Ind. App. 108. See Indianapolis, etc., Rapid Transit Co. v. Foreman, 162 Ind. 85, 102 Am. St. Rep. 185; American Rolling Mill Co. v. Hullinger, 161 Ind. 673; Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Roberts, 161 Ind. 1; Buehner Chair Co. v. Feulner, 28 Ind. App. 479; Glasscock v. Swofford Bros. Dry Goods Co., 106 Mo. App. 657; Bier v. Hosford, 35 Wash. 544. It is not necessary that the defendant set up by answer that the risk on account of which the injury complained of occurred was an assumed one in order that he receive the benefit of that fact. American Car, etc., Co. v. Clark, 32 Ind. App. 644. That the plaintiff assumed the risk which resulted in his injury may, of course, be established by the testimony of the plaintiff. Iowa Gold Min. Co. v. Diefenthaler, 32 Colo. 391. If assumption of risk appears from the evidence of the plaintiff, the defendant is entitled to the benefit of the defense, White v. Lewiston, etc., Frontier R. Co., 94 N. Y. App. Div. 4 at least if it has been pleaded, Ehrenfried v. Lackawanna Iron, etc., Co., 89 N. Y. App. Div. 130, affirmed without opinion 180 N. Y. 515. The fact that the plaintiff assumed the risk of the accident causing the injury complained of may so clearly appear from the evidence produced by the plaintiff himself that the defendant a. INTRODUCTORY 134. 4. Contributory Negligence (1) Reasonab e or Ordinary Care Required of Servant. (2) What Is Reasonable or Ordinary Care. may avail himself thereof by a motion for a nonsuit or for an instruction directing a verdict in his favor. Greeley v. Foster, 32 Colo. 292. In Indiana it has been said that in an action by a servant against the master to recover for injuries alleged to have been received on account of defects in the machinery, appliances, etc., the complaint must disclose an absence of knowledge on the part of the plaintiff of the defects or dangers of which he complains. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Hunsucker, 33 Ind. App. 27. And it has been held that section 359a of Burns's Rev. Stat. Ind., 1901, does not abolish or modify the well-settled rule that in an ordinary action against an employer to recover for the injury or death of an employee through negligence of the employer, the plaintiff shall negative knowledge on the part of the employee of the danger through fault in the employment or retention of servants or want of safety of implements or appliances. Bowles v. Indiana R. Co., 27 Ind. App. 672, 87 Am. St. Rep. 279. 134. 3. Tucker v. Northern Pac. Terminal Co., 41 Oregon 82; Bonn v. Galveston, etc., R. Co., (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 82 S. W. Rep. 808. See Baltimore, etc,, R. Co. v. Clifford, 90 Ill. App. 381; Evans Laundry Co. v. Crawford, 67 Neb. 153. - In an ac Evidence of Assumption of Risks. tion by a brakeman to recover for injuries received by being thrown from the ladder on the side of a freight car, by coming in contact with a scale box structure alongside the track, it was held that the written application of the plaintiff for employment, which was offered by the defendant for the purpose of showing that the plaintiff had notice of the location of the track scale box and that he was in danger of being knocked off a car when passing the structure, was properly excluded. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Swearingen, (C. C. A.) 122 Fed. Rep. 193, affirmed 196 U. S. 51. 4. Servant Bound to Use Ordinary Care United States. - Choctaw, etc., R. Co. v. Tennessee, (C. C. A.) 116 Fed. Rep. 23, affirmed 191 U. S. 326. Alaska. Gibson v. Canadian Pac. Nav. Co., I Alaska 407. Georgia. O Central of Georgia R. Co. v. McClifford, 120 Ga. 90; Sanders v. Central of Georgia R. Co., 123 Ga. 763; Georgia Cotton Oil Co. v. Jackson, 112 Ga. 620. Illinois. Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. Vallowe, 214 Ill. 124, affirming 115 Ill. App. 621; Erie, etc., Transp. Co. v. Gaines, 112 Ill. App. 189. Iowa. Wilder v. Great Western Cereal Co., (Iowa 1905) 104 N. W. Rep. 434: Camp v. Chicago G. W. R. Co., 124 Iowa 238. Michigan. Chilson 7. Lansing Wagon Works, 128 Mich. 43, 8 Detroit Leg. N. 520. Minnesota. Parker v. Pine Tree Lumber Co., 85 Minn. 13. Missouri. Cole v. St. Louis Transit Co., 183 Mo. 81; Erickson v. Kansas City, etc, R. Co., 171 Mo. 647. STATEMENT See note 4. See note 5. Nebraska. Kitzberger v. Chicago, etc., R. North Carolina. Marks v. Harriet Cotton Wellston Coal Co. v. Smith, 65 Ohio St. 70, 87 Am. St. Rep. 547; Green v. New York, etc., R. Co., 26 Ohio Cir. Ct. 609; Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Fisher, 26 Ohio Cir. Ct. 143, affirmed without opinion 51 Ohio St. 574. Oklahoma. - Neeley v. Southwestern Cotton Seed Oil Co., 13 Okla. 356. Pennsylvania. Ehni υ. National Tennessee. Jackson, etc., St. R. Co. v. Simmons, 107 Tenn. 392. Texas. Texas Portland Cement, etc., Co. v. Lee, 36 Tex. Civ. App. 482; Bering Mfg. Co. v. Femelat, 35 Tex. Civ. App. 36; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Cooper, 33 Tex. Civ. App. 319; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Roane, 33 Tex. Civ. App. 299; Horton v. Ft. Worth Packing, etc., Co., 33 Tex. Civ. App. 150; Texas Cent. R. Co. v. Yarbro, 32 Tex. Civ. App. 246; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Johnson, (Tex. Civ. App. 1901) 67 S. W. Rep. 769; Dupree v. Tamborilla, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 603; Waxahachie Oil Co. v. McLain, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 334. Vermont. - La Flam v. Missisquoi Pulp Co., 74 Vt. 125. Virginia. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. Sparrow, 98 Va. 630, 2 Va. Sup. Ct. 526. Washington. - Smith v. Hecla Min. Co., 38 Wash. 454; Beltz v. American Mill Co., 37 Wash. 209. Convict Laborers who are leased out by the state are under the same duty as free men to exercise ordinary and reasonable care and diligence, and if such a convict voluntarily and freely incurs unnecessary risks, and puts himself, of his own volition, in a position of danger, he cannot recover, any more than a free man, under like circumstances, in the same service. Simonds v. Georgia Iron, etc., Co., 133 Fed. Rep. 776, affirmed without opinion (C. C. A.) 133 Fed. Ren. 1010. 5. Care Used by Persons of Ordinary Prudence under Similar Circumstances Alabama. Alabama Steel, etc., Co. v. Wrenn, 136 Ala. 475; Southern R. Co. v. Howell, 135 Ala. 639. Florida. Florida Cent., etc., R. Co. v. Mooney, 45 Fla. 286. Georgia. Wrightsville, etc., R. Co. v. Lat 135. See notes 1, 2. b. AS A BAR TO RECOVERY -(1) Statement of General Rule. --See notes 3, 4. Illinois. Commonwealth Electric Co. Rose, 214 Ill. 545; Gruenendahl v. Consolidated Coal Co., 108 Ill. App. 644. Indiana. - Espenlaub v. Ellis, 34 Ind. App. 163; Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Cavanaugh, 35 Ind. App. 32. Kentucky. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Shumaker, 67 S. W. Rep. 829, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 2458. Michigan. Milbourne. . v. Arnold Electric Power, etc., Co., 103 N. W. Rep. 821, 12 Detroit Leg. N. 177; Bernard v. Pittsburg Coal Co., 137 Mich. 279, 11 Detroit Leg. N. 246. Minnesota. · Bredeson v. C. A. Smith Lumber Co., 91 Minn. 317; Sours v. Great Northern R. Co., 84 Minn. 230. Missouri. Lee v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 112 Mo. App. 372. Nebraska.- Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Fox, 60 Neb. 531. Ohio. - Gensen v. Ohio Oil Co., 12 Ohio Cir. Dec. 10, 22 Ohio Cir. Ct. 276. Tennessee. 108 Tenn. 646. Texas. — Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Melville, (Tex. Civ. App. 1905) 87 S. W. Rep. 863; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Boyce, (Tex. Civ. App. 1905) 87 S. W. Rep. 395; International, etc., R. Co. v. Vanlandingham, (Tex. Civ. App. 1905) 85 S. W. Rep. 847; San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Lester, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 84 S. W. Rep. 401; Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Manns, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 84 S. W. Rep. 254. Ritt v. True Tag Paint Co., Vermont. Kilpatrick v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 74 Vt. 288, 93 Am. St. Rep. 887; La Flam v. Missiquoi Pulp Co., 74 Vt. 125. Washington. — Currans v. Seattle, etc., R., etc., Co., 34 Wash. 512. It has been held that it was not error to refuse to instruct the jury that a servant must be " 'observing" and that his "failure to observe what he should have observed" would defeat a recovery, and to modify the instruction so that, in substance, it required the servant to use due care, diligence, etc. The word cbserve," it was said, is defined by Webster to mean to notice with care, to be on the watch respecting," and a servant is not required to notice with care and to be on the watch" for defects and imperfections. Rock Island Sash, etc., Works . Pohlman, 210 Ill. 133, affirming 99 Ill. App. 670. An Infant is bound to exercise only such care and prudence as reasonably might be expected of a boy of his age and capacity in the same circumstances, and the law does not require as high care from a person of tender years and imperfect discretion as from one of mature years and discretion. Rogers v. Meyerson Printing Co., 103 Mo. App. 683. 135. 1. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Jones, (C. C. A.) 123 Fed. Ren. 753; Erie R. Co. v. Moore, (C. C. A.) 113 Fed. Rev. 269: Nybeck v. Champagne Lumber Co., (C. C. A.) 109 Fed. Rep. 732; Neeley v. Southwestern Cotton Seed Oil Co., 13 Okla. 356; Hone v. Mammoth Min. Co., 27 Utah 168; Yerkes v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 112 Wis. 184, 88 Am. St. Rep. 961. The question of contributory negligence cannot be measured and determined alone by what actually happened. Olsen v. Cook Inlet Coal Fields Co., (C. C. A.) 121 Fed. Rep. 726. Failure to Anticipate Negligence in Others. In some circumstances it may be negligence not to anticipate negligence in others. Erie R. Co. v. Kane, (C. C. A.) 118 Fed. Rep. 223. 2. Wyman v. Clark, 180 Mass. 173; Swartz v. Great Northern R. Co., 93 Minn. 339. 3. Injury Caused Solely by Negligence of Master. Alaska United Gold Min. Co. v. Keating, (C. C. A.) 116 Fed. Rep. 561. 4. Contributory Negligence Bars Recovery United States. - Sievers v. Eyre, 122 Fed. Rep. Alabama. Tuscaloosa Water Works Co. v. Herren, 131 Ala. 81. Arkansas. Western Coal, etc., Co. v. Jones, (Ark. 1905) 87 S. W. Rep. 440; Wadsworth v. Bugg, 71 Ark. 501; Choctaw, etc., R. Co. v. Stallings, 70 Ark. 603. California. - Fries v. American Lead Pencil Co., 141 Cal. 610; Killelea v. California Horseshoe Co., 140 Cal. 602. Colorado. 33 Colo. 150. - Denver, etc., R. Co. v. Maydole, Delaware. - Punkowski V. New Castle Leather Co., 4 Penn. (Del.) 544; Karczewski v. Wilmington City R. Co., 4 Penn. (Del.) 24; Winkler v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 4 Penn. (Del.) 80; Boyd v. Blumenthal, 3 Penn. (Del.) 564; Ray v. Diamond State Steel Co., 2 Penn. (Del.) 525. Georgia. Little v. Southern R. Co., 120 Ga. 347, 102 Am. St. Rep. 104; Sanders v. Central of Georgia R. Co., 123 Ga. 763; Georgia, etc., R. Co. v. Lasseter, 122 Ga. 679; Edwards v. Central of Georgia R. Co., 118 Ga. 678; Roberts v. Albany, etc., R. Co., 114 Ga. 678; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Thompson, 113 Ga. 983; Western, etc., R. Co. v. Jackson, 113 Ga. 355. Illinois. Cullen v. Higgins, 216 Ill. 78; Trakal v. Heusner Baking Co., 204 Ill. 179, affirming judgment 107 Ill. App. 327; Deering Harvester Co. v. Hefferman, 107 Ill. App. 636; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Van Every, 101 Ill. App. 451; Mattoon Gas Light, etc., Co. v. Dolan, 96 Ill. App. 652; Wierzbicky v. Illinois Steel Co., 94 Ill. App. 400; Tri-City R. Co. v. Killeen, 92 Ill. App. 57. Indiana. Nickey v. Steuder, 164 Ind. 189; Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Collins, 163 Ind. 569; Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Clapp, 35 Ind. App. 403; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Wicker, (Ind. App. 1904) 71 N. E. Rep. 223, judgment reversed on rehearing 34 Ind. App. 215. Iowa. Crane v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 124 Iowa 81; Geesen v. Saguin, 115 Iowa 7; Morbey v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 116 Iowa 84. See Bryce v. Burlington, etc., R. Co., (Iowa 1905) 104 N. W. Rep. 483. Kansas. National Brass Mfg. Co. v. Rawl 137. (2) Qualifications of Rule — (a) Discovery of Servant's Negligence in Time to Avoid Injury. See notes 2, 3, 4, 5. ings, (Kan. 1905) 80 Pac. Rep. 628; Higgins v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 70 Kan. 814. Kentucky. Straight Creek Coal Co. ບ. Haney, 87 S. W. Rep. 1114, 27 Ky. L. Rep. 1117; Witten v. Bell, etc., Co., 85 S. W. Rep. 1094, 27 Ky. L. Rep. 580; Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Cook, 73 S. W. Rep. 765, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 2152, rehearing denied (Ky. 1903) 75 S. W. Rep. 218; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Mercer, 70 S. W. Rep. 287, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 908; Daniels v. Covington, etc., El. R., etc., Co., 66 S. W. Rep. 187, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 1800; Sandy River Cannel Coal Co. v. Caudill, 60 S. W. Rep. 180, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 1175. New York. Voegele v. Bardusch, 98 N. Y. App. Div. 127: Mull v. Curtice Bros. Co., 74 N. Y. App. Div. 561. North Carolina. - Hicks v. Naomi Falls Mfg. Co., 138 N. Car. 319; Stewart v. Van Deventer Carpet Co., 138 N. Car. 60; Pressly v. Dover Yarn Mills, 138 N. Car. 410; Jones v. American Warehouse Co., 137 N. Car. 337, 138 N. Car. 546. Ohio. Wellston Coal Co. v. Smith, 65 Ohio St. 70, 87 Am. St. Rep. 547; Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Callahan, 25 Ohio Cir. Ct. 115; Joswoyak v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 4 Ohio Dec. (Reprint) 317, 1 Cleve. L. Rep. 306. Oregon. Stager v. Troy Laundry Co., 38 Oregon 480. South Carolina. Keys v. Winnsboro Granite Co., 72 S. Car. 97; Charping v. Toxaway Mills, 70 S. Car. 470; Scott v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co., 67 S. Car. 136. Texas. - St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Rea, (Tex. 1905) 87 S. W. Rep. 324, reversing (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 84 S. W. Rep. 428; St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Arnold, (Tex. Civ. App. 1905) 87 S. W. Rep. 173; Quinn v. Galveston, etc., R. Co., (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 84 S. W. Rep. 395; Texas Portland Cement, etc., Co. v. Lee, 36 Tex. Civ. App. 482; El Paso Northeastern R. Co. v. Ryan, 36 Tex. Civ. App. 190; Consumers Cotton Oil Co. v. Gentry, 35 Tex. Civ. App. 445; International, etc.. R. Co. v. Villareal, 36 Tex. Civ. App. 532; Southern Pac. R. Co. v. Winton, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 503; Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Kelley, 33 Tex. Civ. App. 442; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Vermont. 74 Vt. 125; 72 Vt. 263. Virginia. La Flam v. Missisquoi Pulp Co., Kilpatrick v. Grand Trunk R. Co., Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Mann, 99 Va. 180, 3 Va. Sup. Ct. 90; Wise Terminal Co. v. McCormick, (Va. 1905) 51 S. E. Rep. 731; McDaniel v. Lynchburg Cotton Mills Co., 99 Va. 146, 3 Va. Sup. Ct. 63. Washington. Kirkham v. Wheeler-Osgood Co., 39 Wash. 415; Currans v. Seattle, etc., R., etc., Co., 34 Wash, 512. West Virginia. - McCreery v. Ohio River R. Co., 49 W. Va. 301. Canada. Robitaille v. White, 19 Quebec Super. Ct. 431. Infant Employees. It has been held that under the New York Labor Law (N. Y. Laws 1897, p. 477, c. 415) prohibiting the employment of children under the age of fourteen years in factories, the contributory negligence of a child employed in a factory in violation of the statute cannot be urged as a defense to a recovery for personal injuries. Lee v. Sterling Silk Mfg. Co., (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 47 Misc. (N. Y.) 182. Contributory Negligence of Third Person. The contributory negligence of the plaintiff or the party injured is usually a good defense, but the fact that the negligence of a third person contributed with that of the master to cause the injury is no defense, for in such a case each of the wrongdoers is responsible for the entire injury. Neal v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 71 Ark. 445. Contributory Negligence of Fellow Servant.— See the title FELLOW SERVANTS, vol. 12, p. 905 et seq. 137. 2. When Ordinary Care of Master Would Have Averted Accident United States. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Putman, (C. C. A.) 120 Fed. Rep. 754. Alabama. Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Williams, 140 Ala. 230; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Banks, 132 Ala. 471. Indiana. Southern Indiana R. Co. v. Fine, 163 Ind. 617. Iowa. Morbey v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 116 Iowa 84. See Kelley v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 118 Iowa 387. Kentucky. - Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Lowe, 118 Ky. 260, (Ky. 1902) 66 S. W. Rep. 736: Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Josey, 110 Ky. 342, 96 Am. St. Rep. 455. Louisiana. Davenport v. F. B. Dubach Lumber Co., 112 La. 943. Minnesota. 86 Minn. 470. Murran v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., Missouri. Hinzeman v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 182 Mo. 611; Dale v. Hill O'Meara Constr. Co., 137. (b) Where Master or Vice-Principal Is Guilty of Wilful Negligence. See note 6. 138. See notes I, 2. 108 Mo. App. 90; Payne v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 105 Mo. App. 155. Nebraska. - New Omaha Thomson-Houston Electric Light Co. v. Baldwin, 62 Neb. 180. North Carolina. Lassiter v. Raleigh, etc., R. Co., 133 N. Car. 244; Smith v. Atlanta, etc., Air Line R. Co., 132 N. Car. 819. See Lassiter v. Raleigh, etc., R. Co., 137 N. Car. 150. Ohio. - Erie R. Co. v. McCormick, 24 Ohio Cir. Ct. 86. Texas. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Williams, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 83 S. W. Rep. 248; San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Brock, 35 Tex. Civ. App. 155; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Skaggs, 32 Tex. Civ. App. 363; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Long, 32 Tex. Civ. App. 40, writ of error denied 97 Tex. 69; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Carter, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 73 S. W. Rep. 50; Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Bowen, 95 Tex. 364; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Roane, 33 Tex. Civ. App. 299, reversing on rehearing (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 75 S. W. Rep. 845; Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Jenkins, 29 Tex. Civ. App. 440; St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Jacobson, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 150. See St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Vestal, (Tex. Civ. App. 1905) 86 S. W. Rep. 790. Utah. Coates v. Union Pac. R. Co., 24 Utah 304. West Virginia. Co., 49 W. Va. 301. Compare Morehead v. Yazoo, etc., R. Co., 84 Miss. 112. McCreery v. Ohio River R. Continuing Negligence. In North Carolina it is held that where the negligence of the master is a continuing negligence there can be no contributory negligence which will discharge the master's liability. Orr v. Southern Bell Telephone, etc., Co., 132 N. Car. 691; Fleming v. Southern R. Co., 131 N. Car. 476. 137. 3. Negligent Act Committed After Knowledge of Servant's Danger. - Richmond Locomotive Works v. Ramsey, (C. C. A.) 131 Fed. Rep. 197; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Jones, 118 Ky. 158; Helm v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 185 Mo. 212; Koons v. Kansas City Suburban Belt R. Co., 178 Mo. 591; Evans v. Wabash R. Co., 178 Mo. 508; Smith v. Atlanta, etc., R. Co., 130 N. Car. 344; Stewart v. Southern R. Co., 128 N. Car. 517; Erie R. Co. v. McCormick, 69 Ohio St. 45; Cardwell v. Gulf, etc., R. Co., (Tex. Civ. App. 1905) 88 S. W. Rep. 422: Dean v. Oregon R., etc., Co., 38 Wash. 565. See Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Stewart, 63 S. W. Rep. 506, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 637; Sharp v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 161 Mo. 214. In an action to recover damages for the death of plaintiff's intestate, on the ground that the defendant failed to take any measures to protect the deceased from the consequences of his voluntary intoxication while upon one of its freight trains as a brakeman, it was held that the trial court rightly directed a verdict for the defendant, because the evidence failed to show that its train employees had any notice or knowledge of the condition of the deceased. Parker . Winona, etc., R. Co., 83 Minn. 212, 4. Where Accident Could Not Have Been Averted by Ordinary Care. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Mencer, 80 S. W. Rep. 816, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 2250; Holland v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co., 137 N. Car. 368; Wise Terminal Co. v. McCormick, (Va. 1905)51 S. E. Rep. 731. Concurrent Negligence. It has been held that the doctrine is not to be applied when the injury was the result of the concurrent negligence of the plaintiff and defendant. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Callahan, 25 Ohio Cir. Ct. 115. 5. Negligent Act of Fellow Servant. See Bowling Green Stone Co. v. Capshaw, 64 S. W. Rep. 507, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 945. 6. Wilful Negligence. Donk Bros. Coal, etc., Co. v. Stroff, 200 Ill. 483, affirming 100 Ill. App. 576; Browne v. Siegel, 191 Ill. 226, affirming 90 Ill. App. 49; Sunnyside Coal Co. v. Center, 100 Ill. App. 546; Himrod Coal Co. v. Adack, 94 Ill. App. 1; Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. Block, 86 Miss. 426. Compare Denver, etc., R. Co. v. Maydole, 33 Colo. 150. In an action to recover under the Alabama Employer's Liability Act (Ala. Code. § 1749) for the consequences of a wanton, wilful, or intentional wrong, contributory negligence is not a defense. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. York, 128 Ala. 305. Wilful Violation of Statute Requiring Safeguards in Mines. In an action against mine owners by a servant to recover for personal injuries sustained by him in consequence of the wilful disregard of statutory provisions requiring the adoption of specified safeguards for the protection of servants, the contributory negligence of the plaintiff is not a defense. Valley Coal Co. v. Rowatt, 196 Ill. 156, affirming 96 Ill. App. 248; Western Anthracite Coal, etc., Co. v. Beaver, 192 Ill. 333, affirming 95 Ill. App. 95. Spring Servant's Knowledge of Negligent Habit or Reckless Act.- It has been said that the rule of nonliability for contributory negligence, in case of injuries wantonly, wilfully, or recklessly inflicted, does not apply where the injured person had or should have had knowledge of the grossly negligent habit or the impending reckless act of the injurer, and could have avoided their consequences by prudence and caution upon his own part. Only when an act of contributory negligence is performed without knowledge or apprehension that the reckless and wanton conduct of another will or may conjoin to produce an evil effect will the injured person be relieved from liability for the result of his own negligence. Beal v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 62 Kan. 250. 138. 1. Gross Negligence. The law does not permit a recovery by a plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence, on the ground that the negligence of the defendant was gross. Nothing short of a wilful act or wilful or intentional neglect of duty will authorize a recovery by a plaintiff guilty of negligence contributing to the injury complained of. Chicago, etc., Coal Co. 7. Moran, 210 Ill. 9, affirming judgment 110 Ill. App. 664. |