1. Bailroads (§ 275*) — Injuries to Persons Working on. or About Cars— Instructions as to Manner oj? Working — Waiver.

Where defendant railroad company had instructed decedent, a scaler for a lumber company, not to scale the loss on the ground as they were being loaded onto cars, hut to do the sealing on the cars after the logs had been loaded, but both decedent and the sealer employed by the railroad company continued to scale on the ground up to the time decedent was struck by a log and killed, and it also appeared that, because the logs were loaded flush with the ends of the cars, a scaler could not measure the ends of the logs without standing on the drawbar which was unsafe, the order given by defendant that the scaler should not work on the ground was waived.

[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Bailroads, Cent. Dig. § 873; Dec. Dig. § 275.*]

2. Bait.roads (§ 282*) — Injuries to Persons AVorking on or About Oars— Actions — Issues.

Where, in an action against a railroad company for death of a log sealer employed by a. sawmill company to scale logs as they were being loaded onto cars by tlie railroad company for transportation to tbe mill, defendant neither in its answer nor by suggestion at the trial nor in its motion for a directed verdict raised the question that defendant’s duty to decedent was limited by the fact that he was not an employe of defendant, but a bare licensee or trespasser, and the court charged that, while the decedent was not employed by defendant, yet in a measure the same rules applied to him as though he had been, and that the work of the two companies was so intimately commingled that the decedent was practically engaged with defendant's employes, defendant’s duty to decedent if he had been a bare licensee or a trespasser was not in issue.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Railroads, Cent Dig. § 921; Dec. Dig. § 282.*]

3.Railroads (§ 275*) — Injuries to Persons Working on or About Gars— Oare Required — Application of Rule of Inability of Master to Servant.

Where defendant railroad company loaded and transported logs for a lumber company, and both the railroad company and the lumber company employed a separate scaler to 'scale the logs as they were loaded onto the cars, the scaler employed by the lumber company was so intimately connected with the work of the railroad company that the court, in an action for his death by being struck by a log alleged to have been negligently Iqaded, property charged that the railroad company owed to decedent practically the same duty as it owed to its own employes, and was bound to furnish, as to him, reasonably safe appliances for carrying on thé work.

[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Railroads, Cent. Dig. § S73; Dee. Dig. § 275.*]

4. Railroads (§ 275*) — Injuries to Persons Working on or About Cars— Care Required.

Where decodent was employed by a lumber company to scale logs as they were loaded by defendant railroad company onto cars for transportation to the mill, defendant was bound to exercise ordinary caire for decedent’s safety, under the rule that a railroad company is bound to exercise such care as to all persons who may lawfully be on its premises transacting business with it.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Railroads,' Cent. Dig. § 873; Dec. Dig. § 275.*]

5. Railroads (§ 282*) — Injuries to Persons Working on or About Cars— Actions — Negligence—Question for Jury.

In an action for death of a log scaler by being struck by a log which fell from the hoisting tongs of a derrick used by defendant railroad company for loading the logs onto flat cars, evidence held to require submission to the jury of defendant’s alleged negligence in permitting the log tongs to become so dull that they would not hold a log, and in failing to use a log chain in loading small logs.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Railroads, Cent. Dig. § 918; Dee. Dig. § 282.*]

0; Railroads (§ 282*) — Injuries to Persons Working on or About Cars— Actions — Contributory Negligence — Instructions.

A request that if decedent in sealing logs for a lumber company voluntarily placed himself in a dangerous position, while the logs were being loaded by defendant railroad company, and did so unnecessarily when there was another place where he could have performed his duty in safety, then plaintiffs could not recover for his death, was property refused as pretermitling the question whether defendant was negligent in permitting the tongs with which the logs were loaded to become so dull and out of repair as to render their use dangerous, or in failing to use a bundling chain in hoisting small logs like that being hoisted at the time decedent was struck and killed.

[Ed. Note. — P’or other cases, see Railroads, Cent. Dig. § 921; Dee. Dig. § 282.*]

7. Railroads (§ 282*) — Injuries to Persons Working on or about Oars - Actions — Contributory Negligence — Instructions.

Decedent, a log sealer for a lumber company, was killed by the fall of a small log from the tongs of a steam log loader, as the log was being loaded onto one of defendant’s flat ears. The court charged that it was the duty of one engaged in dangerous work to adopt the method that was least dangerous, and hence it might become important to determine whether It was less dangerous to scale on the cars as defendant contended or on the ground, hut that, however the jury resolved the question, it was necessarily important for them to lind whether defendant in hoisting such logs was negligent, and, if so, whether decedent in performing his duties observed such precautions as ordinarily prudent men observe to guard against consequences which might naturally he expected to result; that if the danger would have been perfectly apparent to a reasonably prudent and careful man, and decedent could by the use of ordinary care have avoided the danger, and sill! have performed his duties, then he could not recover. Held, that such instruction was correct, since plaintiffs were not barred, if decedent’s death resulted from the negligence of defendant in hoisting the logs, either In an improper manner, or with dull tongs supera dded to the ordinary danger of the situation.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Railroads, Cent. Dig. § 921 ; Dee.'Dig. § 282.*]

8. Trial (§ 260*) — -Instructions—Refusal of Request.

It is not error to refuse a request to charge covered by instructions given.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Trial, Cent. Dig. § (¡51 ; Dec. Dig. § 200.*]