Parker v. W. C. Wood Lumber Co.

Citations

• 98 Miss. 750
• 54 So. 252

Syllabus

<p>1. Master and Servant. Defective appliances. Knowledge of defects. Inspection. Contributory negligence.</p> <p>As a general rule a servant is not required to inquire into the sufficiency of tools provided him by the master, but he may assume that they are suitable and safe, and it is only when circumstances make it the duty of the servant to inquire, that it is contributory negligence on his part not to do so.</p> <p>2. Master and Servant. Knowledge of defects.</p> <p>Where the means of knowledge of the servant is equal to that of the master, the master has no right to' assume that the servant will use such means of knowledge to ascertain the defects of appliances furnished him, because it is not the duty of the servant to inquire into the sufficiency of such things; the servant has the right to rely upon the master’s duty so to inquire.</p> <p>3. Same.</p> <p>Where the appliance is a tool of simple and common and ordinary use and the defect is obvious and patent, the rule requiring the master to inspect does not apply.</p> <p>4. Master and Servant. Simple tool. Cant hook.</p> <p>A cant hook as described in the evidence in this ease is not such a simple tool as to relieve the master from his duty to inspect.</p> <p>5. Knowledge oe Deeeots. Evidence.</p> <p>In determining whether a servant knew or ought to have known of the defect of appliances used by him, it is proper to look not only to his testimony on that point but to all the evidence as to the extent of his use of such tools and his familiarity with same, or tools of similar kind.</p> <p>6. Contributory Negligence. Jury.</p> <p>Where the evidence of the contributory negligence of the servant is uncertain, it is a question for the jury.</p>