Armour v. Russell

Citations

• 144 F. 614
• 6 L.R.A.N.S. 602
• 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 3864

Syllabus

<p>1. MASTER AND SERVANT — SAFE PLACE AND MACHINERY — REASONABLE CARE— Limit of Doty Regarding-.</p> <p>The limit of the master’s duty to his servant regarding places and appliances is to exercise ordinary care, having regard to the hazards of the service, to provide the servant with' reasonably safe working places; machinery, tools, and appliances, and to exercise ordinary care to maintain them in a reasonably safe condition of repair. It is not his duty to provide reasonably safe working places, machinery, tools, or appliances, or to keep them in a reasonably safe condition of repair.-</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 34, Cent. Dig. Master and Servant, |§ 171-177.]</p> <p>2. Appeal — Practice—Error Implies Prejudice.</p> <p>The legal presumption is that error produces prejudice. It is only when the fact appears so clearly as to be beyond doubt that the error challenged did not prejudice, and could not have prejudiced, the coin-plaining party, that the rule that error without prejudice is no ground for reversal is applicable.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 3, Cent. Dig. Appeal and Error, §§ 4029-4033.]</p> <p>3. Same — Charge of Court — Contradictory Rules in. Fatal.</p> <p>The vice of a wrong rule in a charge is not extracted by the fact that the right rule is also given, because it is impossible to tell by which rule the jury was governed.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 46, Cent. .Dig. Trial, § 718.].</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>