Southern Oil Co. v. Ballard

Fifth Circuit

Southern Oil Co. v. Ballard

190 F. 1021, 111 C.C.A. 672, 1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 3840

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided November 3, 1911·No. No. 2,227·Published

Opinion

PER CURTAM.

On the facts, the fellow servant doctrine was not involved, nor did the case turn upon the proposition that a master employer must furnish a safe place to work, but rather on the question how far the plaintiff below assumed the risk in the place he was called to work. Where a carpenter is called to work in and about moving machinery, by adding to or repairing the same, he assumes the risk as to all apparent dangers, but not as to undiscovered hidden dangers, of which.the master -is or should be aware and does not warn him. Under the evidence, the case was necessarily submitted to the jury, and the instructions given by the court show no reversible error. The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURTAM.

On the facts, the fellow servant doctrine was not involved, nor did the case turn upon the proposition that a master employer must furnish a safe place to work, but rather on the question how far the plaintiff below assumed the risk in the place he was called to work. Where a carpenter is called to work in and about moving machinery, by adding to or repairing the same, he assumes the risk as to all apparent dangers, but not as to undiscovered hidden dangers, of which.the master -is or should be aware and does not warn him. Under the evidence, the case was necessarily submitted to the jury, and the instructions given by the court show no reversible error. The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Southern Oil Co. v. Ballard, 190 F. 1021, 111 C.C.A. 672, 1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 3840 (5th Cir. 1911).

Pincite

190 F. 1021 (Southern Oil Co. v. Ballard) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.