Wright v. Stanley

Citations

• 119 F. 330
• 56 C.C.A. 234
• 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 4672

Syllabus

<p>1. Master and Servant—Necessity of Instructions.</p> <p>Where an employer sets an employe at work at machinery with the operation of which the employe is not acquainted, and there is a safe .way and an unsafe way, the employer, if he has reason to know that the employe is unskilled, is required to give him instructions for operating it in the way by which he will avoid injury.</p> <p>2. Same—Dangerous Machinery—Assumption of Risk—Evidence.</p> <p>While a 17 year old boy, working for the first time at a planing machine, was attempting to pull out the “chaser” from the rear, his foot slipped against the cylinder, which was obscured by a pile of chips and shavings, and was so mutilated that amputation became necessary. In an action against his employer for such injuries, evidence examined, and held for the jury whether he had assumed the risk.</p> <p>8. Same—Duty to Instruct—Instructions.</p> <p>In an action for injuries received while working at a planing machine, instructions in regard to the duty of the defendant to instruct plaintiff in the use of the machine examined, and held not objectionable in that they led the jury to understand that defendant became the insurer of plaintiff’s safety.</p> <p>T1. Assumption of risk incident to employment, see note to Railroad Co. v. Hennessey, 38 O. C. A. 314.</p> <p>See Master and Servant, vol. 34, Cent. Dig. § 314.</p>