Master and Servant—Safe Place for Work—Duty of Master-Ordinary Care.—The duty of an employer to furnish to an employee a reasonably safe place in which to work is not absolute. His duty is fulfilled when he exercises ordinary care for that purpose.

Id.—Erroneous Instruction — New Trial — Counter Instruction — Discretion.—It cannot be said that the superior court abused its discretion in granting a new trial for an erroneous instruction as to the duty of the employer, although a counter instruction was given which may have cured the error. Much is committed to the discretion of the trial court in granting a new trial on such ground.

Id.—Limited Ground for New Trial—Review upon Appeal—Error in Defusing Nonsuit.—The -action of the trial court in limiting the ground for granting a new trial to the erroneous instruction does not restrict this court in examining the record to ascertain any other ground for granting a new trial, except the sufficiency of the evidence where it is conflicting. Where one of the grounds for a new trial was the denial of a motion for a nonsuit, urged because no actionable negligence of the defendant was shown, and which it appears should have been granted, the order granting a new trial will be affirmed for error in refusing the nonsuit.

Id.—Injury in Quarry — Blasting from Cliff — Sliding of Bock — Changing Conditions—Negligence not Shown—Burden of Proof. —Where the plaintiff was employed in a quarry, in which blasting was done from a high cliff, and in which the conditions of danger constantly changed as the work progressed, and was injured by the sliding of a rock upon him, and it is not shown that defendant or any one representing a master had any better means of knowledge of the danger than plaintiff, the mere fact that the rock slipped and caused the injury is not prima facie evidence of defendant’s negligence. The burden is upon the plaintiff to show that the injury was due to defendant’s negligence, and for want of proof thereof the nonsuit should have been granted.

Id.—Liability of Master — Bulbs Applicable. — The rule that the master is not liable for dangers existing in the place where the servant is assigned to work, unless the master knows of the dangers or defects, or might have known thereof if he had used ordinary care or skill to ascertain them, applies with greater force where the conditions surrounding the place of work are constantly changing, owing to the progress of the work; and the rule is modified where the servant is under the same obligation as the master to look for dangers in the place of the work, and has equal facilities for ascertaining them, and under these conditions continues the work, in which case the master is not liable for any injury caused by the dangers then existing, unless in some manner he urges or coerces the servant to continue the work, after he himself is aware, or should have been aware, of the danger.

Id.—Absence oe Previous Injury—Presumption not Established.— The fact that no one had been previously hurt by being in the way of sliding rocks, coming down in the ordinary course of blasting in a high cliff, does not establish any presumption that there was no danger therefrom, or that due care had been theretofore used, and does not establish, in the absence of evidence, that proper precautions to prevent the rocks from sliding were not taken by the defendant.