Mississippi Central Railroad v. Bennett

Citations

• 111 Miss. 163
• 71 So. 310

Syllabus

<p>1. Master and Servant. Injuries to servant. Tools and appliances. Knowledge by master. Burden of proof. Defective tools. Evidence. Sufficiency.</p> <p>In order that the master may he held to have been negligent in furnishing the servant with unsafe tools with which to work, it must appear not only that the tool furnished was in fact defective to such an extent as to render it unsafe for the servant to use it, but it must further appear that the master knew, or by reasonable inspection thereof could' have known, of the defect therein and the burden of .proving such actual or constructive knowledge on the part of the master is on the servant when attempting to recover damages for an injury sustained by him by reason of a defect in a tool furnished by the master.</p> <p>2. Master and Servant. Injuries to • servant. Defective tools. Evidence. Sufficiency.</p> <p>The mere fact though unexplained, that a splinter came from an anvil when struck does not amount to proof that the anvil was too hard and therefore defective and unsafe, nor does it follow even prima facie, from^hat fact alone that the master knew of the defect in the anvil, or could have discovered it by an inspection, reasonable or otherwise.</p> <p>'3. Injuries to Servant. Liability of master. Evidence.</p> <p>Under the facts as shown in this case the court held, that the accident complained of was an unavoidable one and that the-master was not liable.</p>