Bulletin Of The Department Of Labor Vol 4 PDF Download

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1899 edition. Excerpt: ...therefore engaged in serving the same master in the same general business, for the purpose of accomplishing one general object, and were therefore fellow-servants with each other. But, while we are convinced that the deceased was guilty of such contributory negligence as to preclude a right of action against the appellant, we are also of the opinion that there was no proof of negligence on the part of appellant. It was appell-ant's duty to exercise ordinary care in selecting its servants and employees, and in providing them a safe place to work in, and proper material and appliances with which to work; and we are of the opinion that it fully discharged its duties in those respects. Even if it be true that the fan was closed down by order of the superintendent, as claimed by respondents (though the great weight of the evidence is to the contrary), and that the shutting down of the fan was one of the causes of the injury oomplained of, still we think that, under the circumstances of the case, such closing down of the fan was not negligence. The evidence discloses that, at the time the fire was discovered by the men upon the outside of the mine, they were suddenly placed in a situation demanding immediate action, and that in the excitement and confusion occa sioned by the discovery of the fire and the peril of the men below, and not knowing the precise location of the fire, they decided to do, and did do, what seemed to them best at the time. If what was done was not the best thing that could have been done, it, nevertheless, can not be deemed an act of negligence, but must be considered a mere error of judgment, for which the company can not be held responsible. In the last case cited Brown v. French, 104 Pa. St., 604, the court says: ...