(b) It is the duty of a master, not only in the first instance to make reasonable efforts to supply his employes

Marsh, 25 Ala. 659; Hayden v. Smithville Mfg. Co., 29 Conn. 548; Buzzel v. Laconia Mfg. Co., 48 Me. 113; Cayzer v. Taylor, 10 Gray (Mass.) 274; Snow v. Housatonic R. Co., 8 Allen (Mass.) 441; Holden v. Fitchburg K. Co., 129 Mass. 268; s. c., 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 94; Ford v. Fitchburg, etc., R. Co., 110 Mass. 240; Fifield v. Northern R. Co., 42 N. H. 225; Harrison v. Central R. Co., 31 N. J. L. 293; Noyes v. Smith, 28 Vt. 59; Trask v. California So. R. Co., 63 Cal. 96; Hallower v. Henley, 6 Cal. 209; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Marcelles, 59 Tex. 334; s. c., 12 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 231; Foster v. Pusey (Del.), 14 Atl. Rep. 545.

Hough v. Texas, etc., Pacific R. Co., 100 U. S. 213; Sioux City, etc., R. Co. v. Finlayson, 16 Neb. 272; s. c., 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 77; Dean v. Oceanic Steam Nav. Co., 24 Fed. Rep. 124; Mulvey v. Rhode Island Locomotive Works, 14 R. I. 204; Gunter v. Mfg. Co., 15 S. Car. 443; Houston, etc., R. v. Myers., 55 Tex. 110; Smith v. Oxford Iron Co., 42 N. J. L. 467; s. c., 36 Am. Rep., 535; Schultz v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 48 Wis. 375; Little Rock, etc., R. v. Duffy, 35 Ark. 602; Cowles v. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 84 N. Car. 309; s. c., 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 90; 37 Am. Rep. 620; McMahon v. Henning, I McCrary (U.S.) 516; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Platt, 89 Ill. 141; Penn Co. v. Lynch, 90 Ill. 333; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Mahoney, 4. Ill. App. 262; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Avery, 109 Ill. 314; s. c., 17 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 649; Allerton Packing Co. v. Eagan, 86 Ill. 253; Houston, etc., R. v. Dunham, 49 Tex. 181; Hanrathy v. Northern, etc., R. Co., 46 Md. 280; Camp Point Mfg. Co. v. Ballou, 71 Ill. 417; Kielley v. Belcher, etc., Mining Co., 3 Sawy. (U. S.) 500; Memphis, etc., R. Co. v. Thomas, 51 Miss. 637; Kelly v. Erie Telegraph, etc., Co., 34 Min. 321; Ft. Wayne, etc., R. Co. v. Gildersleeve, 33 Mich. 133; Columbus, etc., R. Co. v. Troesch, 68 Ill. 545; Perry v. Rick etts, 55 Ill. 234; Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Moore, 77 Ill. 217; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Jackson, 55 Ill. 492; Gibson v. Pac. R. Co., 46 Mo. 163; Wonder v. R. Co., 32 Md. 411; Beeson v. Green Mountain G. M. Co., 57 Cal. 20; Bowers v. Union Pac. R. Co. (Utah) 7 Pac. Rep. 251; Perry v. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 94; Umback v.

The employer is not bound to employ the latest improvements in machinery, however. He is not liable for an injury which might have been avoided if such machinery had been in use. He is only bound to see that that which he does employ is safe and suitable: Disher v. New York, etc., R. Co., 94 N. Y. 622; 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 233; Western, etc., v. Bishop, 50 Ga. 465; Wonder v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 32 Md. 411; Fort Wayne, etc., R. Co. v. Gildersleeve, 33 Mich. 133; Botsford v. Mich. Cent. R. Co., 33 Mich. 256; Devitt v. Pacific R. Co., 50 Mo. 302; Cagney v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 69 Mo. 416; Salters v. Delaware & H. C. Co., 3 Hun. (N. Y.) 338; Stack v. Patterson, 6 Phila. (Pa.) 225; Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. Keenan, 103 Pa. St. 124; Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. McCormick, 74 Ind. 440; s. c., 5 Am. & Eng., R. R. Cas. 474; Louisville & N. R. Co., v. Orr, 84 Ind. 50; 8 Am.

safe and suitable machinery, tools, etc., but also thereafter to make like efforts to keep such machinery, etc., in safe and serviceable condition; and to that end he must make all needed inspections and examinations.1

(c) A master is bound to exercise reasonable care in selecting and retaining a sufficient number of competent servants to properly carry on the business in which the servant is employed.2

(d) It is the duty of the master to make and publish such regulations or provisions for the safety of employes as will afford them reasonable protection against the dangers incident to the performance of their respective duties.1

(e) It is the duty of the master who knowingly employs a youthful or inexperienced servant, and subjects him to the control of another servant, to see that he is not employed in a more hazardous position than that for which he was employed, and to give him such warning of his danger as his youth or inexperience demands.2

§ 25. Duty to Supply Proper Machinery and Appliances.— The master., whether a natural person or a corporation, is obliged not to expose the servant, when conducting the master's business, to perils or hazards against which he may be guarded by proper diligence on the part of the "To that end he is bound to observe all the care which prudence and the exigencies of the situation require in providing the servant with machinery or other instru

master.

1. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. Lavalley, 36 Ohio St. 222; s. c., 5 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 549; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. George, 19 Ill. 510; Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. v. Powers, 74 Ill., 341; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Taylor, 69 Ill. 461; s. c., 18 Am. Rep. 626; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. McLallen, 84 Ill. 109; Crew v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 20 Fed. Rep. 87; Flike v. Boston & A. R. Co., 53 N. Y. 549; Abel v. Delaware & H. Canal Co., 103 N. Y. 581; s. c., 28 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 497; Besel v. New York Cent, & H. R. R. Co., 70 N. Y. 171; Haskin v. Railroad Co., 65 Barb. (N. Y.) 129; Wright v. New York Cent. R. Co., 25 N. Y. 562; Rose v. Boston & A. R. Co., 58 N. Y. 217; Vose v. Lancashire, etc., R. Co., 2 H. & N. 728;

Kansas Pac. R. Co. v. Salmon, 14

Kan. 512; Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Woodward, 41 Md. 268; Cooper v. Iowa Cent. R. Co., 44 Iowa, 134.

2. Fort v. Union Pac. R. Co., 2 Dill (U. S.) 259; Union Pac. R. Co. v. Fort, 17 Wall. (U. S.) 553; Dowling v. Allen, 74 Mo. 13; s. c., 41 Am. Rep. 298; Allen v. Burlington, etc., R. Co., 57 Iowa, 623; Grizzle v. Frost, 3 F. & F., 622; Hill v. Gust, 55 Ind. 45; Siegel v. Schautz, 2 T. & C. (N. Y.) 353. Compare O'Connell v. Adams, 120 Mass. 427; Anderson v. Morrison, 22 Minn. 274; Combs v. New Bedford Cordage Co., 102 Mass. 572; Chicago & N. W. R. Co, v. Bayfield, 37 Mich. 205; Lalor v. Chicago, etc., R. Co,, 52 Ill. 401. See note by Geo. W. Easley, 25 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. p. 519.

mentalities adequately safe for use by the latter. It is implied in the contract between the parties that the servant risks the dangers which ordinarily attend or are incident to the business in which he voluntarily engages for compensation, among which is the carelessness of those, at least in the same work or employment, with whose habits, conduct, and capacity he has, in the course of his duties, an opportunity to become acquainted, and against whose neglect or incompetency, he may himself take such precautions as his inclination or judgment may suggest. But it is equally implied in the same contract that the master shall supply the physical means and agencies for the conduct of his business. It is also implied, and public policy requires, that in selecting such means he shall not be wanting in proper His negligence in that regard is not a hazard usually or necessarily attendant upon the business. Nor is it one which the servant, in legal contemplation, is presumed to risk, for the obvious reason that the servant who is to use the instrumentalities provided by the master has, ordinarily, no connection with their purchase in the first instance, or with their preservation or maintenance in suitable condition after they have been supplied by the master."1

care.

1. Harlan, J., in Hough v. Texas & P. R. Co., 100 U. S. 213. In considering what dangers the servant is presumed to risk, the Supreme Court of the United States said, in Union Pac. R. Co. v. Fort, 17 Wall. (U.S.) 553: "But this presumption cannot arise where the risk is not within the contract of service, and the servant had no reason to believe he would have to encounter it. If it were otherwise, principals would be released from all obligations to make reparations to an employe in a subordinate position for any injury caused by the wrongful con

duct of the persons placed over him, whether they were fellow-servants in the same common service or not. Such a doctrine would be subversive of all just ideas of the obligations arising out of the contract of service, and withdraw all protection from the subordinate employes of railroad corporations. These corporations, instead of being required to conduct their business so as not to endanger life, would, so far as this class of persons were concerned, be relieved of all pecuniary responsibility in case they fail to do it. A doctrine that leads to such results is

The rule of law, then, which exempts the master from responsibility to the servant for injuries received from the ordinary risks of his-employment, including the negligence of his fellow-servants, does not excuse the employer from the exercise of ordinary care in supplying and maintaining suitable machinery and instrumentalities for the performance of the work required. One who enters the employment of another has a right to count on this duty, and is not required to assume the risks of the master's negligence in this respect. The fact that it is a duty which must always be discharged, when the employer is a corporation, by officers and agents, does not relieve the corporation from the obligation. The agents who are charged with the duty of supplying safe machinery are not, in the true sense of the rule relied on, to be regarded as fellow-servants of those who are engaged in operating it.

unsupported by reason, and cannot receive our sanction." To effect that servant does not run risk of defective machinery, see ante, § 24.

1. Ford v, Fitchburg R. Co., 110 Mass. 240; Ackerson v. Dennison, 117 Mass. 407; Killea v. Faxon, 125 Mass. 485; Snow v. Housatonic R. Co., 8 Allen (Mass.) 441; Hough v. Texas & Pac. R. Co., 100 U. S. 213; Davis v. Central Vermont R. Co., 55 Vt. 84; s. c., 11 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 173; Noyes v. Smith, 28 Vt. 59; Cumberland, etc., R. Co. v. State, 44 Md. 283; Shanny v. Androscoggin. Mills, 66 Me. 420; Bowers v. Union Pac. R. Co. (Utah), 7 Pac. Rep. 251; Cunningham v. Union Pac. R. Co. (Utah), 7 Pac. Rep. 795; Bushby v. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co., 107 N. Y. 374; Booth v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 67 N. Y. 593, Stringham v. Stewart, 100 N. Y. 516; Pantzar v. Tilly Foster Min. Co., 99 N. Y. 368; Laning v. New York Cent. R. Co.,

They are charged with

49 N. Y. 521; Brickner v. New York Cent. R. Co., 2 Lansing (N. Y.) 506; affirmed by Court of Appeals, 49 N. Y. 672; Ryan v. Fowler; 24 N. Y. 410; Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Moore, 29 Kan. 632; s. c., 11 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 243; Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. McKee, 37 Kan. 592; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Marcelles, 59 Tex. 334; s. c., 12 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 231; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Rider, 62 Tex. 267; Mitchell v. Robinson, 80 Ind. 281; s. c., 41 Am. Rep. 812; Krueger v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 111 Ind. 51; Sioux City & P. R. Co. v. Finlayson, 16 Neb. 272; s. c., 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 77.; Wells v. Coe, 9 Colo. 159; Mulvey v. Rhode Island Locomotive Works, 14 R. I. 204; Ardesco Oil Co. v. Gilson, 63 Pa. St. 146; Patterson v. Pittsburg, etc., R. Co., 76 Pa. St, 389; Philaphia, etc., R. Co. v. Keenan, 103 Pa. St. 124; O'Donnell v. Allegheny V. R. Co., 59 Pa. St. 239; Smith v. Ox