Master and Servant—Liability of Master for Defective Appliances.— A master is liable to the servant for injury caused from defective or unsafe appliances, the defects and danger from which were unknown to the servant, and were not obvious to his view.

Id.—Means of Knowledge—Duty of Master—Rights of Servant.— The mere fact that the master and servant may have had equal means of knowledge will not save the master from liability. The master is bound to use the means of knowledge, and has no. right to assume that the servant will discover defects in appliances rendering them unsafe. The servant has no such duty, but has a right to rely upon the master’s means of knowledge, and duty of inquiry. He is not required to use any degree of care or diligence to discover defects or danger not obvious, and in regard to which he is not put upon inquiry by any discovery or suggestion of danger which it would he gross carelessness for him to neglect.

Id.—Unsafe Brick Wall—Injury to Servant—Obedience to Orders— Danger not Obvious.—Where an injury resulted to the plaintiff from the falling of an unsafe brick wall in front of which he was employed as a bricklayer in building a front wall under employers, one of whom directed the work, and the obeying of whose instructions caused the falling forward of the rear wall, which was not an obvious danger to the plaintiff of his obedience to orders, it was the duty of the employers to know the condition of the wall, and the plaintiff was justified in obeying the orders given, and the employers are responsible for the resulting injury.

In.—Consistency of Findings—Ignorance of Unsafe Condition— Comparative Opportunity of Knowledge.—Findings that the plaintiff was ignorant of the unsafe condition of the wall, and that he did not have a better opportunity than the defendant for seeing and knowing its condition, are not contradictory.