Sec. 401-65. SAME SUBJECT — MASTER'S DUTY TO PROVIDE SAFE PLACE.-We have seen that it is one of the master's duties to his servants to provide a reasonably safe place, and this obligates the master to see to it that there are no dangerous or unsafe buildings or machinery, or secret perils upon his premises, which are, or ought to be known to him, but concerning which the servant is in ignorance. "The general rule is, that while the owner of real estate is not bound to provide safeguards for wrongdoers, he is bound to take care that those who come upon his premises by his express or implied invitation be protected against injury resulting from the unsafe condition of the premises, or from other perils, the existence of which the invited party had no reason to look for... The invitation to come upon dangerous premises without apprising him of the danger is just as culpable, and an injury resulting from it is just as deserving of compensation in the case of a servant as in any other case Whether invited upon his premises by the contract of service, or by the calls of business, or by direct request, is immaterial. The party extending the invitation owes a duty to the party accepting it to see that at least ordinary care and prudence is exercised to protect him against dangers not within his knowledge, and not open

occupations are not informed of the accompanying dangers by the promoters thereof, or by the employers of laborers thereon, and such laborers remain in ignorance of the dangers and suffer in consequence, the employers will also be chargeable for the injuries sustained."

to observation. . . Negligence does not consist in not putting one's building or machinery in the safest possible condition, or in not conducting one's business in the safest way; but there is negligence in not exercising ordinary care that the buildings and machinery, such as they are, shall not cause injury, and that the business, as conducted, shall not inflict damage upon those who themselves are guilty of no neglect of prudence."

If the employee is acquainted with the hazard which he incurs from working about machinery, and subsequently is injured by the same, he cannot hold the master liable, as it is said: "Every manufacturer has a right to choose the machinery to be used in his business, and to control that business in the manner most agreeable to himself, provided he does not thereby violate the law of the land. He may select his appliances, and run his mill with old or new machinery, just as he may ride in an old or new carriage, navigate an old or new vessel, occupy an old or new house, as he pleases. The employee having knowledge of the circumstances on entering his service for the stipulated reward, cannot complain of the peculiar taste and habits of his employer, nor sue him for damages sustained in and resulting from that peculiar service." In the providing of a reasonably safe place for the servant to carry on the work, the master is under obligation to keep the same safe, except as danger

2 Cooley on Torts (2d ed.), 648, 651; citing, Marshall v. Stewart, 33 Eng. L. &. Eq. 1; Coughtry v. Globe Woolen Co., 56 N. Y. 124; Walsh v. Peet Valve Co., 110 Mass. 23; No. Chicago, etc. Co. v. Johnson, 114 Ill. 57.

3 Hayden v. Smithville Mfg. Co., 29 Conn. 548, 558.

may arise from the very work the servant is doing, or by his manner of doing it. Inspections and tests should be made in order to determine, from time to time, what repairs are needed. It is said the rule of safe place does not apply where the servant himself prepares the place in which he is to work, or without necessity goes uninvited where his duties do not call him, out of curiosity or for some purpose of his own and is thereby injured.R

The authorities are divided as to whether the master owes a servant newly employed the duty of inspecting the work previously done by other servants in order to discover unsafe conditions resulting from their negligence, or whether it is one of the risks which the servant assumes. In some states it is said the risk is assumed by the new servant and the master owes no duty in this regard. In others it is held that as part of due diligence

4 Chesson v. Rooer L. Co., 118 N. C. 59; Moriss Bros. v. Bowers, 105 Tenn. 59; Na. Syrup Co. v. Carlson, 155 Ill. 210; Russell v. Pac. Can. Co., 116 Cal. 527.

5 Smith v. Erie R. Co., 67 N. J. L. 636, 59 L. R. A. 302, 172 Ill. 177.

6 Thayer v. Smoky Hollow Coal Co., 121 Ia. 121; Bergin v. So., etc. Co., 70 Conn. 54. Nor where he is sent to make repairs or to work on the premises of a third person Roche v. Llewellyn, 140 Cal. 563, 70 Conn. 573. See also, Kennedy v. Chase, 119 Cal. 637; Knox v. Coal Co., 90 Tenn. 546.

"O'Connor v. Rich, 164 Mass. 560; Lambert v. Missisquoi Pulp Co., 72 Vt. 278. In the last case the master was held not to be responsible to a carpenter who was injured by the fall of a defective staging built by other carpenters of plaintiff before his employment.

in furnishing a safe place to work the master must ascertain and guard the new servant against all defects in the work done not obvious to him on assuming the employment.8

Where young and inexperienced servants are employed, the master becomes chargeable with the further duty of warning and instructing them against the perils of the service, which would not be necessary in case of adult or experienced servants on account of the obvious nature of the dangers to such mature persons. "It is the general rule, that when a contract of employment is made with a minor, he assumes the ordinary hazards of such employment in the same manner as an adult assumes them. But the rule is modified in cases of young persons of inexperience and immature judgment, who are not capable of fully understanding and appreciating the perils to which they are exposed. They are entitled to recover for injuries which result from such perils, unless they have been instructed how to avoid them." The principle of the duty to instruct an inexperienced man in the work may also apply to other than minors.10

The fact that the master has ordered the servant to undertake a particularly dangerous work, or to work in

8 Simone v. Kirk, 173 N. Y. 7; Thomas v. Ross, 75 Fed. 552. 9 Chicago, etc. Co. v. Reineiger, 140 Ill. 334. See also, O'Connor v. Golden Gat Co., 135 Cal. 537; Hinckly v. Horazdowsky, 133 Ill. 359; Rolling Mill Co. v. Corrigan, 46 Ohio St. 283; Noden v. Verlenden Bros., 211 Pa. St. 135; Hill v. Gust, 55 Ind. 45; 113 Mass. 396; 102 Mass. 572.

10 Chicago, etc. R. Co. v. Bayfield, 37 Mich. 205; Brennan v. Gordon, 118 N. Y. 489; Smith v. Coal Co., 186 Pa. St. 28.

an exceptionally dangerous place may also be considered in fixing the responsibility for an injury received while the servant is doing such work. The liability of the master in such cases arises from the fact that he may be presumed negligent for not warning the servant of the extra danger, which was known, or ought to have been known to the master, and not equally known to the servant. In a case where an employee was injured by the falling of a hoisting apparatus, it was held that the liability of the master depended on the existence of three facts: 1. The defective and unsafe condition of the apparatus and that the injury proceeded therefrom. 2. That defendant knew or ought to have known of the defect. 3. That plaintiff did not know of it and had not equal means of knowledge.1

1 Cole v. Chicago, etc. R. Co., 71 Wis. 114; Malone v. Hawley, 46 Cal. 409; Perry v. Marsh, 25 Ala. 659; Turner v. So. Pac. Co., 142 Cal. 580; Reed v. Stockmeyer, 74 Fed. 186. In the last case it is stated: "If the servant be of mature years, and of ordinary intelligence and experience, he is presumed to know and comprehend obvious dangers. In such case the master is not liable for an injury happening to the servant in the performance of dangerous work without the scope of his engagement for service, merely because he has been directed by the master to perform such work. If the servant is possessed of knowledge and experience sufficient to comprehend the danger, and without objection undertakes the service, the master is not liable for injury received by the servant in such new and more dangerous employment. The liability upon the master in cases of injury to the servant received in a dangerous employment outside of that for which he had engaged arises, therefore, not from the direction of the master to the servant to depart from the one service and engage in the other and more dangerous work, but from failure