the relation between master and servant, so that if the latter is exposed by his master without warning to such a risk, and thereby contracts the disease, being ignorant of the danger, and unable to know of it by the exercise of ordinary care, the master is liable if he either knew, or, in the exercise of ordinary care ought to have known, of the danger.41

§ 145. Same-Duty Continuous-Discovery and Remedy of Defects. But the duty of the master is not ended when he has used due care in furnishing safe premises and appliances. It is a continuing one and he must exercise reasonable diligence to maintain both premises and appliances in suitable condition. Hence he is negligent if he fails to make reasonable inspections of his premises and appliances to discover defects, and fails to remedy such defects as are dangerous in character,42 although he is not required to remedy the defect immediately upon its

41 Kliegel v. Aitken, 94 Wis. 432, 59 Am. St. Rep. 901, 69 N. W. 67.

42 Bowman v. White, 110 Cal. 23, 42 Pac. 470; Krogg v. Atlanta etc. R. Co., 77 Ga. 202, 4 Am. St. Rep. 79; Indianapolis etc. R. Co. v. Toy, 91 Ill. 474, 33 Am. Rep. 57; Columbus etc. R. Co. v. Arnold, 31 Ind. 174, 99 Am. Dec. 615; Brann v. Chicago etc. R. Co., 53 Iowa, 595, 36 Am. Rep. 243; Ashland Coal etc. Co. v. Wallace, 101 Ky. 626, 42 S. W. 744, 43 S. W. 207; Ford v. Fitchburg R. Co., 110 Mass. 240, 14 Am. Rep. 598; Snow v. Housatonic R. Co., 8 Allen, 441, 85 Am. Dec. 720; Rogers v. Ludlow Mfg. Co., 144 Mass. 198, 59 Am. Rep. 68; McDonald v. Chicago etc. R. Co., 41 Minn. 439, 16 Am. St. Rep. 711, 43 N. W. 380; Settle v. St. Louis etc. R. Co., 127 Mo. 336, 48 Am. St. Rep. 633, 30 S. W. 125; Cole v. Warren Mfg. Co., 63 N. J. L. 626, 44 Atl. 647; Fuller v. Jewett, 80 N. Y. 46, 36 Am. Rep. 575; Goodrich v. New York etc. R. Co., 116 N. Y. 398, 15 Am. St. Rep. 410, 22 N. E. 397; Keegan v. Western R. Co., 8 N. Y. 175, 59 Am. Dec. 476; Pennsylvania etc. R. Co. v. Mason, 109 Pa. St. 296, 58 Am. Rep. 722; McMillan Marble Co. v. Black, 89 Tenn. 118, 14 S. W. 479; Houston v. Brush, 66 Vt. 331, 29 Atl. 380; Ferriss v. Berlin Machine Works, 90 Wis. 541, 63 N. W. 234; Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. McElyea, 71 Tex. 386, 10 Am. St. Rep. 747, 9 S. W. 313.

discovery, and is not liable for accidents which occur before he has had a reasonable opportunity to repair. 43

44

Again, while the master is liable where he fails to discover defects, either through neglect to inspect or because he does not employ reasonable and adequate means to discover them, he is not responsible for those defects which are latent and not discoverable by the use of ordinarily careful and reasonable tests,45 unless he has an actual or constructive knowledge thereof. As to what will constitute constructive knowledge, it seems that knowledge of a fellow-servant of the person injured will not bind

43 Indianapolis etc. R. Co. v. Flanigan, 77 Ill. 365; Seaboard Mfg. Co. v. Woodson, 94 Ala. 147, 10 South. 87; Gulf etc. R. Co. v. Donnelly, 70 Tex. 371, 8 Am. St. Rep. 608, 8 S. W. 52; Fluhrer v. Lake Shore etc. R. Co., 121 Mich. 212, 80 N. W. 23; Atchison etc. R. Co. v. Sadler, 38 Kan. 128, 5 Am. St. Rep. 729, 16 Pac. 46.

44 Atz v. Newark etc. Mfg. Co., 59 N. J. L. 41, 34 Atl. 980; Union Stockyards Co. v. Goodwin, 57 Neb. 138, 77 N. W. 357; Read v. New York etc. Ry. Co., 20 R. I. 209, 37 Atl. 947; Kennedy v. Chicago etc. R. Co., 57 Minn. 227, 58 N. W. 878; Greenleaf v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 29 Iowa, 14, 4 Am. Rep. 181; Dayharsh v. Hannibal etc. R. Co., 103 Mo. 570, 23 Am. St. Rep. 900, 15 S. W. 554; Porter v. Hannibal etc. R. Co., 71 Mo. 66, 36 Am. Rep. 454; Corcoran v. Holbrook, 59 N. Y. 517, 17 Am. Rep. 369; Devlin v. Smith, 89 N. Y. 470, 42 Am. Rep. 311; Mason v. Richmond etc. R. Co., 111 N. C. 482, 32 Am. St. Rep. 814, 16 S. E. 698; Columbus etc. R. Co. v. Erick, 51 Ohio St. 146, 37 N. E. 128; Nadau v. White River Lumber Co., 76 Wis. 120, 20 Am. St. Rep. 29, 43 N. W. 1135; Vosburgh v. Lake Shore etc. R. Co., 94 N. Y. 374, 46 Am. Rep. 148.

45 The Flowergate, 31 Fed. 762; Indianapolis etc. R. Co. v. Toy, 91 Ill. 474, 33 Am. Rep. 57; Noyes v. Smith, 28 Vt. 59, 65 Am. Dec. 222; Georgia etc. Banking Co. v. Nelms, 83 Ga. 70, 20 Am. St. Rep. 308, 9 S. E. 1049; Kansas City etc. R. Co. v. Webb, 97 Ala. 157, 11 South. 888; Central etc. Banking Co. v. Kenny, 58 Ga. 485; Central R. Co. v. Freeman, 75 Ga. 331; Nutt v. Southern Pacific Co., 25 Or. 291, 35 Pac. 653; Bohn v. Chicago etc. R. Co., 106 Mo. 429, 17 S. W. 580; Roughan v. Boston etc. Block Co., 161 Mass. 24, 36 N. E. 461; McAvoy v. Pennsylvania Woolen Co., 140 Pa. St. 1, 21 Atl. 246.

48

the master, 46 nor even that of a superior servant, unless he be one to whom the master has delegated his duty of inspecting and repairing the premises and appliances. As appears in a subsequent section, the servant assumes many dangers and risks in his employment, and it may be that one will, under some circumstances, assume the danger from defects unknown to both, but which ought to be known to the master. Thus when his services are engaged to detect and remedy defects,49 the master is not responsible for those defects which might have been discovered, because the servant enters the employment on the understanding that there may be undiscovered defects.

§ 146. Duty of Master to Communicate Defects and Dangers to Servant.-All the duties of the master, which impliedly spring from the creation of the re

46 McKenna v. Martin etc. Paper Co., 176 Pa. St. St. 306, 35 Atl. 131; Smoot v. Mobile etc. R. Co., 67 Ala. 13; St. Louis etc. R. Co. v. Theat, 12 Tex. Civ. App. 375, 34 S. W. 153.

47 Indiana etc. R. Co. v. Snyder (Ind.), 32 N. E. 1129.

48 Richardson v. Cooper, 88 Ill. 270; Mattise v. Consumers' Ice Mfg. Co., 46 La. Ann. 1535, 49 Am. St. Rep. 356, 16 South. 400; Johnson v. First Nat. Bank, 79 Wis. 414, 24 Am. St. Rep. 722, 48 N. W. 712; Elledge v. National City etc. R. Co., 100 Cal. 282, 38 Am. St. Rep. 290, 34 Pac. 720; Krogg v. Atlanta etc. R. Co., 77 Ga. 202, 4 Am. St. Rep. 77; Hess v. Rosenthal, 160 Ill. 621, 43 N. E. 743; Columbus etc. R. Co. v. Arnold, 31 Ind. 174, 99 Am. Dec. 615; Chicago etc. R. Co. v. Jackson, 55 Ill. 492, 8 Am. Rep. 661; Reed v. Burlington etc. R. Co., 72 Iowa, 166, 2 Am. St. Rep. 243, 33 N. W. 451; Sangamon Coal Min. Co. v. Wiggerhaus, 122 Ill. 279, 13 N. E. 648; Worden v. Humiston etc. R. Co., 76 Iowa, 310, 41 N. W. 26; Brabbits v. Chicago etc. R. Co., 38 Wis. 289; Speed v. Atlanta etc. R. Co., 71 Mo. 303; Chapman v. Southern Pacific Co., 12 Utah, 30, 41 Pac. 551.

49 Murphy v. Boston etc. R. Co., 88 N. Y. 146, 42 Am. Rep. 240; Dartmouth Spinning Co. v. Achord, 84 Ga. 14, 10 S. E. 449; Fraker v. St. Paul etc. R. Co., 32 Minn. 54, 19 N. W. 349; Chicago etc. R. Co. v. Ward, 61 Ill. 130.

lation of master and servant are directed toward the purpose and object of making the employment reasonably safe in all particulars of which the servant has no knowledge, or cannot reasonably be presumed to have knowledge. Hence, not only must the master provide and inspect his machinery and premises, but he must also inform his servants of those dangers which are impliedly unknown or of which he knows the servant is unaware. He owes this duty to the servant that the latter may govern his actions accordingly, and if the servant continue in the prosecution of his employment subsequent to receiving such information, he does so at his own risk from the dangers disclosed.50 To omit to give the information required by the rule just stated is negligence, and will render the master liable for injuries suffered from the undisclosed dangers.

The master not being an insurer of his premises or appliances, he is not bound to know all the defects or dangers which exist in them. He is held to a knowledge of those which reasonable diligence, under the circumstances and considering that degree of injury resulting from accident, would disclose.

What dangers of those actually or impliedly known by the master must be communicated to the servant by him depends upon the experience and mental ability of the servant. The general rule is that a master is not bound to warn his servants of those dangers and defects that are patent or obvious.51

50 Post, sec. 149.

51 Fones v. Phillips, 39 Ark. 17, 43 Am. Rep. 264; East etc. R. Co. v. Sims, 80 Ga. 807, 6 S. E. 595; Wornell v. Maine etc. R. Co., 79 Me. 397, 1 Am. St. Rep. 321, 10 Atl. 49; Sladky v. Marinette Lumber Co., 107 Wis. 250, 83 N. W. 514; Bellows v. Pennsylvania etc. Co., 157 Pa. St. 51, 27 Atl. 685; Crown v. Orr, 140 N. Y. 450, 35 N. E. 648; McCue v. National Starch Mfg. Co., 142 N. Y. 106, 36 N. E. 809; Hathaway v. Michigan Central R. Co., 51 Mich. 253, 47 Am.

But many dangers, which would be obvious to a skilled or experienced operator or employee, would be unknown and latent to an inexperienced or unskilled workman. A man of mature years ought to be able to discern possible dangers more readily than a child of tender age. The rule seems to be, then, that the master must disclose those defects and dangers, with a knowledge of which he is charged, and with a knowledge of which the servant is not charged.52 Hence the more inexperienced the servant is the more care that should be taken to inform and warn him. This inexperience may be the result of mere unfamiliarity with the details of the servant's employment,53 or may arise from infancy or menRep. 569; Campbell v. Dearborn, 175 Mass. 183, 55 N. E. 892; Crowley v. Pacific Mills, 148 Mass. 228, 19 N. E. 344; Pratt v. Prouty, 153 Mass. 333, 26 N. E. 1002; Atlas Engine Works v. Randall, 100 Ind. 293, 50 Am. Rep. 798; Hettchen v. Chipman, 87 Md. 729, 41 Atl. 65; McCarthy v. Mulgrew, 107 Iowa, 76, 77 N. W. 527; Berger v. St. Paul etc. R. Co., 39 Minn. 78, 38 N. W. 814; Fulford V. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 185 Pa. St. 329, 39 Atl. 1115.

52 Atkins v. Merrick Thread Co., 142 Mass. 431, 8 N. E. 241; McDonald v. Chicago etc. R. Co., 41 Minn. 439, 16 Am. St. Rep. 711, 43 N. W. 380; Louisville etc. R. Co. v. Wright, 115 Ind. 378, 7 Am. St. Rep. 432, 16 N. E. 145, 17 N. E. 584; Smith v. Peninsular Car Works, 60 Mich. 501, 1 Am. St. Rep. 542, 27 N. W. 662; Fones v. Phillips, 39 Ark. 17, 43 Am. Rep. 264; Elledge v. National City etc. R. Co., 100 Cal. 282, 38 Am. St. Rep. 290, 34 Pac. 720; Myhan v. Louisiana Electric Light etc. Co., 41 La. Ann. 964, 17 Am. St. Rep. 436, 6 South. 799; Durst v. Carnegie Steel Co., 173 Pa. St. 162, 33 Atl. 1102.

53 Fisk v. Central Pacific R. Co., 72 Cal. 38, 1 Am. St. Rep. 22, note, 13 Pac. 144; Ingerman v. Moore, 90 Cal. 410, 25 Am. St. Rep. 138, 27 Pac. 306; May v. Smith, 92 Ga. 95, 44 Am. St. Rep. 84, 18 S. E. 360; Louisville etc. R. Co. v. Hall, 87 Ala. 708, 13 Am. St. Rep. 84, 6 South. 40; Palmer v. Michigan Central R. Co., 93 Mich. 363, 32 Am. St. Rep. 507, 53 N. W. 397; Brennan v. Gordon, 118 N. Y. 489, 16 Am. St. Rep. 775, 23 N. E. 810; Ross v. Walker, 139 Pa. St. 42, 23 Am. St. Rep. 160, 21 Atl. 157, 159; Tagg v. McGeorge, 155 Pa. St. 368, 35 Am. St. Rep. 889, 26 Atl. 671; Nadau v. White River Lumber Co., 76 Wis. 120, 20 Am. St. Rep. 29, 43 N. W. 1135;