Skip to main content
· 11/12/1903

St. Louis Cordage Co. v. Miller

Citations

  • 126 F. 495
  • 63 L.R.A. 551
  • 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4343

Syllabus

<p>1. Injury to Servant — Negligence—Assumption op Risk — Contributory Negligence — Distinct Depenses.</p> <p>Assumption of risk and contributory negligence are distinct and separate defenses. The former rests in contract, the latter in tort</p> <p>2. Same — Assumption op Risk not Based on Contributory Negligence.</p> <p>The defense of assumption of risk is not conditioned or limited by the existence of contributory negligence, and the latter is not an element or attribute of it.</p> <p>Assumption of risk is alike available whether the risk assumed is great or small, whether the danger from it was imminent and certain or remote and improbable, and whether or not the servant was guilty of contributory negligence in assuming the risk or in exposing himself to the danger.</p> <p>8. Same — General Doctrine.</p> <p>A servant, by entering or continuing in the employment of a master, without complaint, assumes the risks and dangers of the employment which he knows and appreciates and those which an ordinarily prudent and careful person of his capacity and intelligence would have known and appreciated in his situation.</p> <p>4 Same — Estoppel.</p> <p>An employs cannot be heard to say that he did not appreciate or realize the danger where the defects were obvious and the dangers would have been apparent to an ordinarily prudent person of his intelligence and experience in his situation.</p> <p>5. Same — Defects and Dangers.</p> <p>A servant, by continuing in the employment without complaint, assumes the risks of the defects and dangers which arise during the service, to the same extent that he assumes those which existed when he entered the employment.</p> <p>6. Same — Defects Arising from Negligence of Master.</p> <p>Among the risks and dangers which the servant assumes by entering or continuing in the employment without notifying his master of them, are those which arise from the failure of the master to completely discharge his duty to exercise ordinary care to furnish t

Judges: Sanborn, Thayer

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.