H. D. Williams Cooperage Co. v. Headrick
Citations
- 159 F. 680
- 86 C.C.A. 548
- 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 4117
Syllabus
<p>1. Master and Servant — Negligence—Contributory Negligence — Promise to Provide Safeguards Against Risks.</p> <p>A servant had been at work tending an equalizer in a temporary stave mill, standing about 3 feet in front of it, for about a month. Beneath the two saws were holes in the ground, which held about two bushels each, made to receive the sawdust and blocks which fell from the saws. This was the usual way in which such mills and equalizers were constructed. It was the duty of another servant to clean these holes out when they became filled; but he neglected ids duty, and they were frequently so full that the exact location of their edges was concealed' by the sawdust and blocks, and this was their condition at the time of the accident. The day before the accident the servant complained of the danger from this condition and from the exposed saws, and the master promised to keep the holes cleaned out and to make the saws safe, On the next day, upon a signal to go to the barrel saw, the servant undertook to pass between a bench, which was 18 inches from the edge of one of the holes and 30 inches from one of the equalizer saws, and that saw, stepped into one of the holes and the saw cut his foot. He might have gone around the bench away from the holes with comparative safety by traveling about 8 feet farther.</p> <p>Hold, the servant was guilty of contributory negligence that was fatal to his suit.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For eases in point, see Gent. Dig. vol. 34, Master and Servant, §§ 706-709.]</p> <p>2. Samé — Duty of Master Does Not Require Him to Furnish Newest and Safest Appliances — Limit of Duty.</p> <p>The master is not required to supply or use the best, newest, or safest places, appliances, or methods of operation to secure the safety of his servants.</p> <p>The limit of his duty is to exercise ordinary care to supply reasonably safe places, appliances, and methods.</p> <p>The test of the full discharge of this duty is ordinary care to supply such place
Judges: Adams, Philips, Sanborn
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
14 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Johns-Manville, Inc. v. PockerEighth Circuit· 1928-05-04· cited 97×
- McGivern v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co.Eighth Circuit· 1942-12-26· cited 52×
- Hardie v. New York Harbor Dry Dock CorporationSecond Circuit· 1925-11-16· cited 25×
- Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. MooreEighth Circuit· 1909-01-07· cited 21×
- Grammer v. Mid-Continent Petroleum CorporationTenth Circuit· 1934-05-01· cited 13×
- Headrick v. H. D. Cooperage Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas· 1911-02-13· cited 12×
- Allen v. Shell Petroleum Corp.Supreme Court of Kansas· 1937-06-12· cited 9×
- Phillips Petroleum Co. v. ManningEighth Circuit· 1936-02-03· cited 5×
- United States Cast Iron Pipe & Foundry Co. v. EasthamFifth Circuit· 1916-11-14· cited 5×
- Beulah Coal Mining Co. v. VerbrughEighth Circuit· 1923-08-01· cited 5×
- L. E. Whitham Constr. Co. v. RemerTenth Circuit· 1937-12-11· cited 3×
- Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp. v. HaneTenth Circuit· 1932-03-05· cited 2×
- Harrison v. L. E. Myers Const. Co.Eighth Circuit· 1930-07-18· cited 1×
- Pierson v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co.Eighth Circuit· 1909-04-26
Cites
13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Washington & Georgetown Railroad v. McDadeSupreme Court· 1890-05-19· cited 259×
- Southern Pacific Co. v. SeleySupreme Court· 1894-03-05· cited 83×
- St. Louis Cordage Co. v. MillerEighth Circuit· 1903-11-12· cited 69×
- Gilbert v. Burlington, C. R. & N. Ry. Co.Eighth Circuit· 1904-03-24· cited 61×
- Gowen v. HarleyEighth Circuit· 1893-07-10· cited 59×
- District of Columbia v. McElligottSupreme Court· 1886-04-12· cited 47×
- Morris v. Duluth, S. S. & A. Ry. Co.Eighth Circuit· 1901-04-24· cited 34×
- Russell v. TillotsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1885-10-24· cited 28×
- Mississippi River Logging Co. v. SchneiderSeventh Circuit· 1896-05-04· cited 17×
- Cunningham v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota· 1883-07-16· cited 13×
- Gleason v. Detroit, G. H. & M. Ry. Co.Sixth Circuit· 1896-04-14· cited 12×
- McCain v. Chicago, B. & Q. R.Eighth Circuit· 1896-08-24· cited 7×
- Kansas & T. Coal Co. v. ReidEighth Circuit· 1898-03-21· cited 6×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.