1. Master and Servant (§ 00*) — -Injuries to Servant — Cabe Required.

It is the duty of a master to adopt all reasonable means and precautions to provide for the safely of iiis employes while they are engaged in his employment; the degree of care being measured, by the dangers to be apprehended or avoided.

LEd. Note. — For oilier cases, see Master and Servant, Dec. Dig. § 90.*]

2. Master and Servant (§ 90*) — Duty oe Master — Dangers.

It is the duty of a master not o expose his employés to perils or hazards against which they may be guarded by proper diligence of the master.

[Ed. Note.- — For other, .cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. § 139; Dec. Dig. § 90.*)

3. Master and Servant (§ 90*) — Injuries to Servant — “Reasonable Diligence.”

Reasonable diligence of a master to guard against injuries to employés implies such watchfulness, caution, and foresight as, under all the circumstances of the particular service, a master ought to exercise.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. § 139; Dee. Dig. § 90.*

For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 7, pp. 5957, 5958.)

4. Master and Servant (§ 90*) — Injuries to Servant- — “Negligence.”

Failure of a master to exercise such reasonable diligence, caution, and' foresight as a prudent man would exercise under similar circumstances to guard employés against injuries is negligence.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. § 139; Dec. Dig. § 90.*

For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 5, pp. 4743-4763; vol. 8, pp. 7729-7731.)

5. Master and Servant (§ 185*) — -Injuries to Servant — Vice Principal.

W'bere a railroad train dispatcher, on being informed of a loaded runaway car on which decedent was riding, in an endeavor to stop the same, directed an intermediate telegraph operator to line certain switches so as to turn the car onto a branch line, where the car was derailed and wrecked, the dispatcher in giving such orders was a vice principal.

TEd. Note. — For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§ 385-421; Dec. Dig. § 185.*]

6. Master and Servant (§ 226*) — Injuries to Servant — Assumed Risk.

The risk assumed by an employe in carrying on bis master’s business does not exempt the master from performance of his nondelegable duty to furnish a safe place for his employs to work.

TEd. Note. — For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§ 659-607; Dec. Dig. § 226.*

Assumption of risk incident to employment, see note to Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. I-Iennessey, 38 C. C. A. 314.)

7. Trial (§ 165*) — Questions oe Law or Fact — Direction oe Verdict — Consideration oe Evidence. ,

On defendant’s motion for a nonsuit at the close of plaintiff’s case, plaintiff is entitled to have the evidence, with all the inferences properly deducible therefrom, considered in the light most favorable to her cause of action.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Trial, Cent. Dig. §§ 373, 374; Dec. Dig. § 165.*)

8. Master and Servant (§ 286*) — Death oe Servant — Negligence oe Train Dispatcher — Question eoe Jury.

In an action for death of a railroad conductor by the wrecking of a runaway car, whether defendant’s train dispatcher was negligent in- giving orders to turn the car, which was heavily loaded and running at a high rate of speed, onto a branch line track equipped with light rails, where the car was immediately derailed and wrecked, was for the jury.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Master and Servant, Dee. Dig. § 286.*]

9. Master and Servant (§ 129*) — Death of Servant — Negligence of Vice Principal — Contributing Cause.

It was not necessary that the negligence of a railroad train dispatcher should have been the sole cause of decedent’s death by the derailment of a car which the dispatcher ordered turned onto a branch line in order to establish actionable negligence on the part of the railroad company, provided the train dispatcher’s negligence contributed to or had a share in bringing about the accident.

I Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§ 257-203: Dec. Dig. § 129.*]

10. Master and Servant (§ 289*) — Death of Servant-Railroads — Rules.

Where decedent, a freight conductor, was killed while riding a runaway car, he was not negligent as a matter of law in violating the rule prohibiting trainmen from taking a car out on the main line, unless they are certain that the brake is in order; it appearing that the brake on the car in question was insufficient to hold it only because it was overloaded.

¡Ed. Noto. — For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§ 3089-1132; Dec. Dig. § 289.*]

11. Master and Servant (§ 289*) — Death of Servant — Railroads—Runaway Cars — Negligence—Question for Jury.

Where a freight conductor was killed while riding a runaway car which had a brake which was insufficient because the car was overloaded, whether he was negligent in permitting the car to be placed on the main track in charge of a brakeman, in alleged violation of a rule prohibiting trainmen from taking a car on the main line on the grade and cutting it off and leaving it alone, was for the jury.

¡Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§ 1089-3132; Dec. Dig. § 289.*]

12. Master and Servant (§ 218*) — Death of Servant — Runaway Car-Complaint.

Where, in an action for death of a railroad freight conductor while riding a runaway ear, which was alleged to. have been negligently switched onto a branch line, where it was derailed because of the lightness of the rails, the complaint charged that at the time the car was so switched the brakes were out of repair and insufficient to hold the car, and that the accident occurred by reason of the negligence of the defendant, its servants and employes as previously alleged, the complaint sufficiently charged negligence with reference to the sufficiency of the brake.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§ 816-886; Dec. Dig. § 258.*]

18. Master and "Servant (§ 248*) — Death of Servant — Servant’s Negligence — Last Clear Chance.

Though decedent, a freight conductor, who was killed while riding a runaway car, was negligent in setting the car out on the main track on an ascending grade without knowing that the brake was sufficient to hold it, such negligence would not preclude a recovery for his death under the last clear chance doctrine where defendant, having sufficient knowledge of decedent’s • danger and notice to put a reasonably prudent man on the alert, was negligent in failing to take proper precautions to stop the car in such a manner as not to cause injury.

[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. SS 801 -804; Dee. Dig. § 248.*]

14. Master and Servant (§ 289*) — Death of Servant — Employer’s Liability Act.

Under the employer’s liability act (Act Cong. April 22, 1908, c. 149; 85 Stat. 05 fU. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 1371]), providing that the fact that an employe has been guilty of contributory negligence shall not bar a recovery, but the damages shall be diminished by the jury in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to such employé, where decedent, a freight conductor, was idlled while engaged in interstate commerce in the operation of an interstate train by the escape of an overloaded freight car, the defense of contributory negligence was for the jury.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Master and Servant, Dee. Dig. § 289.*]

15. Master and Servant (§ 288*) — Death of Servant — Railroads—Assumed Risk.

Where a railroad freight conductor, seeing that an overloaded freight car on the main track in charge of a brakeman had escaped from his control, caught the car and went to the brakeman’s assistance, and was thereafter killed by derailment of the car, the duty he assumed was incident to his position as conductor of the train, and one which he was not at liberty to abandon, unless the danger was so obvious that an ordinarily prudent person would not have incurred the same, and hence he did not assume the risk as a matter of law.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Master and Servant, Dec. Dig. § 288.*]

16. Master and Servant (§ 226*) — Death oe Servant — Assumed Risk.

. Under the rule that an employé assumes the risk of dangers incident to the employment, but not those arising from the employer’s negligence, the defense of assumed risk is not available to an employer who has himself been negligent with respect to such employment.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§ 659-667; Dec. Dig. § 226.*]