The sole question presented by this writ oí error is whether the court below erred in denying a motion made by the defendant to the action lor a direction to the jury to return a verdict in its favor.

The action was one for damages for personal injuries sustained by the defendant in error, who was plaintiff in the court below, while trucking pulp. The record shows lhat the plaintiff had been employed by the defendant company for some time in its paper mills at Oregon City, state of Oregon, as a grinder, hut that on the 31st day of October, 1906, he was put to trucking pulp from the warehouse out to the dock, in doing which he had to pass through a long passageway in which there was at one place a rather steep incline. The next day, November 1st, in running the truck, the plaintiff, in going down the incline, stepped on a piece of pulp, slipped and fell, sustaining the injury for which he sued. The ground of his action was the alleged negligence of the defendant in permitting pieces of pulp to so accumulate upon the floor of the passageway, and the floor to be so wet, •as to make the passageway dangerous, and also in failing to keep it properly lighted.

There was evidence tending to show those alleged acts of negligence; for example, the plaintiff was questioned, and answered as follows:

Fred Kennedy, a witness for the plaintiff, was questioned, and answered, among other things, as follows :

J. Sondergard, a witness for the plaintiff, was questioned, and answered, among other things, as follows:

Robert Cook, a witness for the plaintiff, was questioned, and answered, among other things, as follows:

There was also evidence tending to show that the floor of the passageway was more or less wet and slippery, and that pieces of pulp *119 were permitted to accumulate upon it, thereby rendering it more or less dangerous.

The testimony referred to certainly tended to sustain the alleged negligence on the part of the defendant; and, that being so, the court below was, we think, clearly right in its ruling to the effect that that issue was one to be passed upon by the jury — the defendant to the action having put in issue its alleged negligence; for the law cast upon the defendant company the duty to furnish the plaintiff a safe place, in view of the nature of the employment and of all the facts and circumstances attending it, in which to work. It is also true that the plaintiff assumed the ordinary risks attending his employment, but he had the legal right to rely upon the performance by his employer of its legal duty, and if the place — all things considered — was not safe, by reason of which the plaintiff was subjected to some extraordinary risk or danger, not known, and which he in the exercise of reasonable and ordinary care would not have known, then surely it cannot be properly said as matter of law that the plaintiff assumed any such extraordinary risk or danger.

We are of the opinion that the court below properly submitted the issues in the case to the determination of the jury. San Francisco & P. S. S. Co. v. Carlson (C. C. A.) 161 Fed. 851 ; Bunker Hill & Sullivan Min. & C. Co. v. Jones, 130 Fed. 819 , 65 C. C. A. 363 ; George v. Clark, 85 Fed. 608 , 29 C. C. A. 374 ; Great Northern Ry. Co. v. McLaughlin, 70 Fed. 674 , 17 C. C. A. 330 .

The judgment is affirmed.