Burns v. Ruddock-Orleans Cypress Co.

Citations

• 114 La. 247
• 38 So. 157
• 1905 La. LEXIS 449

Syllabus

<p>EVIDENCE — WEIGHT—INJURY TO EMPLOYES — DE - PECTIVE APPLIANCES — REPAIRS.</p> <p>1. In civil as in’ criminal cases, a theoretical possibility, wholly unsupported by proof or probability, will not outweigh direct testimony which, to the ordinary mind, carries conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.</p> <p>2. It does not follow, because an ignorant boy may have failed to appreciate a danger to which he was subjected by reason of defective appliances, that his employer, charged with the obligation of furnishing him with appliances reasonably safe, should not have known such danger, when; by the exercise of proper care in the matter of inspection, he, the employer, might have been informed thereof.</p> <p>3. The master is bound, not only to exercise due care that the appliances furnished for the use and protection of the servant are reasonably safe and sufficient, when furnished, but to see that they are maintained in that condition, and, unless the danger is obvious, or he is particularly warned concerning it, the servant has the right to rely upon the superior intelligence of the master to protect him therefrom.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>