Mullin v. California Horseshoe Co.

Citations

• 105 Cal. 77
• 38 P. 535
• 1894 Cal. LEXIS 1113

Syllabus

<p>Master and Servant—Negligence—Safety of Place and Appliances— Representation of Employer—Fellow-servant.—It is the duty of an employer to furnish a safe and suitable place for his employee to work, and suitable and safe appliances and machinery for him to work with; and the employer cannot be exonerated from liability to an employee for breach of this duty, by delegating it either to a superior officer, agent, or servant, or to a subordinate g.gent or servant; and the person to whom such duty is delegated, who undertakes or omits to perform it, is the representative of the employer, and not a mere fellow-servant with the one who is injured, as the result of the breach of such duty.</p> <p>Id.—Contributory Negligence—Knowledge of Danger.—When it is claimed that an injured employee was guilty of contributory negligence it must appear that he not only knew, or had the means of knowledge, of the unsafeness of the place, appliances, or machinery, but also that he knew, or ought to have known, of the danger to which he was himself personally exposed.</p> <p>Id.—Question of Fact—Injury to Minor—Insecure Plank Upon Platform—Special Employment without Warning—Observation of Danger—Nonsuit.—Where a minor was employed as a press-boy in a horseshoe-shop, and was ordered by the machinist who had general supervision of the boys in the whole shop to go upon a platform by means of a ladder, where he had never been sent before, to hold a broken belt over a shaft, while the machinist fixed it, and was injured by falling forward upon the shaft, as the result of a toppling plank insecurely fastened, one end of which rested on an upright of the ladder, and was not cautioned before going that any danger attended the duty assigned him, although he noticed how the plank was supported when he went up the ladder with the belt, and also that the plank shook a little when he went along over it, to place the belt over the shaft; held, that the question whether the minor was guilty of such ne