Washington & Georgetown Railroad v. McDade

Citations

• 135 U.S. 554
• 10 S. Ct. 1044
• 34 L. Ed. 235
• 1890 U.S. LEXIS 2042

Syllabus

<p>An employer of labor in connection -with machinery is not bound to insure the absolute safety of the machinery or mechanical appliances which he provides for the use of his employés, nor is he bound to supply for their use the best and safest or newest of such appliances; but he is bound to use all reasonable care and prudence for the safety of those in his service, by providing them with machinery reasonably safe and suitable for use, and' if he fails in this duty, he is responsible to them for any injury which may happen to them through a defect of machinery which was, or ought to have been known to him, and which was net known to the employes; but if anemployé, who is injured by reason of a defect in such machinery, knew of the defect which caused it, and remained in the’ service of his employer, and continued to use the defective machinery without giving notice thereof to him, he must be’deemed to have assumed the risk of all danger reasonably to be apprehended from such use.</p> <p>When a person employed by another to labor in connection with machinery, is wanting in such reasonable care' and prud.ence as would have prevented the happening of an accident and is injured by the machinery, he is guilty of contributory negligence, and his employer is thereby absolved from responsibility for the injury, although it was occasioned by defect in the machinery and through the negligence of the employe*.</p> <p>The question of contributory negligence is, as a general-rule, one for the jury, under proper instructions by the court; especially where the facts are in dispute, and the evidence in relation to them is such that fair-1 minded men may draw different conclusions from it.</p> <p>A court may refuse to give a requested instruction when it has already' ' given substantially the same instruct — m its own language.</p>