1. Master and Servant (§ 288*) — Injuries to Servant — Defective Appliances — Assumed Bisk.

Plaintiff, while spreading gravel at the bottom of an elevator well in the installation of an elevator, was injured by the fall of the dirt bucket due to the defective character of the hook by which it was attached to the cable. Plaintiff’s duties were confined to work at the bottom of the well, including the removal of the bucket from the hook and replacing it as each load was received. There was nothing in the character of his work to direct his attention to the fastening or structure of the hook, and he did not in fact know that it was defective. Held, that plaintiff did not assume the risk of the defect as a matter of law.

[IOd. Note. — For other eases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§ 10G8-1088; Dec. Dig. § 288.*

Assumption of risk incident to employment, see note to Chesapeake & O. B. Co. v. Hennessey, 38 C. C. A. 314.]

2. Master asd Servant (§ 235*) — Tools—Duty to Inspect.

A servant is not required to exercise care in inspecting tools before lie starts to use them, being entitled to assume that the master has exercised reasonable diligence to provide suitable tools unless the servant knows that the duty has not been performed or the fact is obvious.

[Ed. Note. — For other, cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§ 710-722; Dec. Dig. § 235.*]

3. Master and Servant (§ 270*) — Similar Accident — Defective Appliance.

Plaintiff, while assisting in the Construction of a plunger elevator well, was injured by the fall of a dirt bucket due to the defective character of the hook by which it was attached to the cable. Defendant had installed in the preceding 15 months but two plunger elevators before installing the one in question, and the same hook had been used for all. B eld, that evidence, that in constructing a well for one of such elevators 15 months before the accident to plaintiff a similar accident happened to another employs due to the defectiveness of the same hook, was admissible to show that the appliance was defective.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§ 913-027, 932; Dec. Dig. § 270.*]

4. Evidence (§ 145*) — Materiality—Remoteness.

Such evidence was not objectionable for remoteness.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Evidence, Cent. Dig. § 434; Dec. Dig § 145.*]

5. Trial (§ 282*) — Exceptions—Effect.

An exception to the refusal “to give defendant’s requested instructions in the form asked” was insufficient to call the court’s attention to any particular error involved in the refusal to give the instructions and was not available if any of the instructions requested were erroneous or superfluous because covered by the charge given.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Trial, Cent. Dig. §§ 69o, C90; Dec. Dig. § 282.*]

6. Trial (§ 252*) — Instructions—Requests to Charge — Applicability to Evidence.

Where, in an action for injuries to a servant, it was assumed throughout the trial and in the instructions that the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury was defendant’s act in supplying a defective hook, and there was no attempt to show that it was anything else, a request to charge, that in order to recover the jury must find that defendant’s negligence as charged in the complaint was the proximate cause of the accident, etc., was superfluous.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Trial, Cent. Dig. §§ 005, 598-612; Dec. Dig. § 252.*]