Coolbroth v. Maine Central Railroad

Master and servant. It is tlie well settled law that a servant of mature age and. common intelligence, when he engages to serve a master, undertakes, as between himself and master, to run all the ordinary and apparent risks of the service.

On exceptions to the ruling of the court in overruling defendant’s demurrer to the plaintiff’s declaration. The question presented by this writ and demurrer, is whether the master, who has full knowledge of the perils of a service, and orders his servant to dangerous work, of the danger of which he is ignorant, both from inexperience and from reliance upon the superior knowledge of the master, is liable for an injury received by the servant in such employment, Avhen ho is. Avithout fault, and acting carefully. This court say, in Buzzed v. Laconia Man. Co. 48 Maine, 116: "The superior intelligence and determining will of the-master demand vigilance on his part that his servants shall neither wantonly nor negligently be exposed to needless and unnecessary peril. The servant has no general control. He is the actor. The master is the director. The one commands, the other obeys.” "His service is compulsory from the pressure of want.” "He has a right to presume that all proper attention shall be given to his safety, and that he shall not be carelessly and needlessly exposed to risks not necessarily resulting from his occupation. ” These remarks apply to the case at bar. It has been held that an employer who takes an inexperienced man into a dangerous place without apprising him of the risks of the employment, and without warning him of his danger, is liable in case of injury. Parkhurst v. Johnson, (Mich.) reported in 16 Reporter, 19. The same doctrine is held in Union Man. Oo. v. Morrissey, (Ohio), 22 Amer. Law Reg. 574; Miller v. R. R. 17 Fed. Rep. 67; Elmer v. Loche, 135 Mass. 579 ; Ryan v. Tarbox, 135 Mass. 207. It is a question for the jury, not matter of law, whether the master is negligent when the risk was incurred by direction of the master to do the act in a manner unnecessarily dangerous, as in this case. Qlarhe v. Holmes, 7 Hurl. & N. 949 ; Greenleaf v. R. R. Go. 29 Iowa, 14; Patterson v. R. R. Go. 76 Penn. St. 389 ; Ford v. R. R. 110 Mass. 240; Hough v. R. R. 100 TJ. 8. 215 ; Mulvey v. R. R. Locomotive Go. 14 R. I. 204. Upon the facts alleged, we are entitled to the judgment of the jury, whether negligence is imputable to the defendants, and whether, under all the circumstances, the plaintiff was in the exercise of due care. Ryan v. Tarbox, 135 Mass. 207 ; Snow t. R. R. 8 Allen, 441; Huddleston v. Lowell Machine Shop, 106 Mass. 282 ; Whittaker v. Boylston, 97 Mass. 273 ; Goornbs w. Oordage Go. 102 Mass. 572 ; Hough v. R. R. 100 U. S. 215. It follows that the demurrer is not well taken. cited: íGavett v. M. & L. R. R. Oo. 16 Cray, 501; Todd v. O. G. It. It. Go. 3 Allen, 18 ; Gahagan v. B. & L. B. B. Go. 1 Allen, 187; Grovjs v. M. C. B. B. Go. 67 Maine, 100; Lawler v. A. B. B. Go. 62 Maine, 463 ; Day v. 8. & D. B. B. Go. 42 Mich. 523, (2 A. & E. cas. 126) ; L. B. B. B. Go. v. Duffey, 35 Ark. 602, (4 A. & E, Cas. 637) ; G. & G. B. B. Go. v. Bresmer, 94 Penn. 103, (4 A. & E. Cas. 647) ; L. 8. B. B. Go. v. McGormicJc, 74 Ind. 440, (5 A. & E. Cas. 474) ; Ballou v. G. <€* W. B. B. Go. (Wis.) 5 A. & E. Cas. 480; jP. It. B. Go. v. 8entmeyer, 92 Penn. 276, (5 A. & E. Cas. 508) ; Howland v. M. B. B. Go. (Wis.) 5 A. & E. Cas. 578; G. B. B. Go. v. Lempe, (Texas) 11 A. & E. Cas. 201; Coombs v. W. B. Gordage Go. 102 Mass. 572 ; Gayzer v. Taylor, 10 Gray, 274; Huddleston v. Lowell M. Works, 106 Mass. 282 ; Arkerson v. Dennison, 117 Mass. 407 ; Buzzed v. Laconia JSTfg Go. 48 Maine, 113 ; Shanny v. Androscoggin Mills, 66 Maine, 427 ; M. B. B. Go. v. Raley, 25 Kansas, 35, (5 A. & E. Cas. 594) ; Snow v. II. B. B. Go. 8 Allen, 441; Kenney v. Shaw, 133 Mass. 501; Sullivan v. India Co. 113 Mass. 396 ; Hill v. Gust, 55 Ind. 45 ; St Louis v. Valirius, 56 Ind. 511; Thompson v. O. B. B. Go. 18 Fed. Hep. 239 ; 2 Thompson, Neg. 994, 1009 ; Hathaway v. M. Q. B: B. Go. 12 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 249, see note; 1. B. & W. B. v. Flanigan, 77 111. 365 ; F. W. B. It. Go. v. Gildersleeve, 33 Mich.’ 133 ; Walsh v. St. P. é D. B. B. Go. 2 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 144.