Black's Adm'r v. Va. Portland Cement Co
Decision Date | 21 September 1905 |
Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Parties | BLACK'S ADM'R. v. VIRGINIA PORTLAND CEMENT CO. |
Though a servant, on entering an employment, agrees by implication to assume the ordinary risks incident to the service, he does not assume any risk which may be obviated by the exercise of reasonable care on the part of the master.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 34, Cent. Dig. Master and Servant, §§ 538, 547, 550.]
A declaration in an action for death of a servant by the fall of rock in a stone quarry in which he was employéd, alleging that the rock was in a position from which it was liable to fall, that defendant knew such fact and negligently permitted it so to remain, and that deceased, ignorant of the situation, remained at work in the quarry in due course of his employment, and while so engaged received his fatal injury, was not demurrable on the ground that the place where plaintiff was employéd was constantly changing, and was not a place furnished by the master, but prepared in part by the work of the servants, the dangers of which they assumed.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 34, Cent. Dig. Master and Servant, §§ 547, 557.]
Appeal from Circuit Court, Augusta County.
Action by W. Arthur Wilson, administrator of George H. Black, deceased, against the Virginia Portland Cement Company. From a judgment dismissing the complaint, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
H. H. Wayt, Carter Braxton, and Curry & Glenn, for appellant.
Patrick & Gordon, for appellee.
KEITH, P. This is an action of trespass on the case, in which the administrator of George H. Black, deceased, sues the Virginia Portland Cement Company for injuries resulting in the death of his intestate.
The declaration shows that George H. Black was, when injured, in the employment of the Portland Company, engaged in getting out rocks from its quarry, and, after stating in general terms the obligation of the company to its servants, proceeds as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Colonna Shipyard Inc v. Dunn
...influence of the doctrine of assumed risks." See, also, Darby Coal Min. Co. v. Shoop, 116 Va. 848, 83 S. E. 412; Black v. Va. Portland Cement Co., 104 Va. 450, 51 S. E. 831; Norton Coal Co. v. Murphy, 108 Va. 528, 62 S. E. 268. An employee cannot be held to have assumed the risk of a danger......
-
Colonna Shipyard v. Dunn
...the influence of the doctrine of assumed risk.'" See also Darby Coal Min. Co. v. Shoop, 116 Va. 848, 83 S.E. 412; Black v. Va. Portland Cement Co., 104 Va. 450, 51 S.E. 831; Norton Coal Co. Murphy, 108 Va. 528, 62 S.E. 268. An employee cannot be held to have assumed the risk of a dangerous ......
-
Southern Ry. Co v. Wilmouth
...to use it was necessary, and a failure to provide such reasonable protection would be actionable negligence. Black v. Portland Cement Co., 104 Va. 450, 51 S. E. 831; Froman v. C. & O. Ry. Co., 148 Va. 148, 138 S. E. 658. Did Wilmouth assume those risks incident to this opening in the footbr......
-
Southern Ry. v. Wilmouth
...expected to use it was necessary, and a failure to provide such reasonable protection would be actionable negligence. Black Portland Cement Co., 104 Va., 450, 51 S.E. 831; Froman C. & O. Ry. Co., 148 Va., 148, 138 S.E. Did Wilmouth assume those risks incident to this opening in the foot bri......