118 Mo. App. 254 | Mo. Ct. App. | 1906
(after stating the facts). — Generally speaking, it is the dnty of the master to* exercise ordinary care to furnish the servant a reasonably safe place, where, by exercising ordinary care on his part, he can perform the labors assigned with a reasonable degree of safety to himself, subject only to the risks ordinarily incident to the employment. But it is said that this well-settled rule has an equally well-settled exception, and that is, that the master is not required to furnish the servant such a safe place in which to work when the danger is temporary and transitory only, and arises from the hazard and nature of the work itself and is known to the servants. This no doubt is true. What is here termed an exception to the rule of safe place, however, amounts to no more than the doctrine that the servant assumes the risks ordinarily incident to the employment, inasmuch as the rule of safe place is abrogated thereby only as to such risks as arise from the nature and hazard of the work and are therefore ordinarily incident, etc. [Ziegenmeyer v. Goetz Lime & Cement Co., 113 Mo. App. 330.] And it has been said that the rule of safe place does not impose upon the master the duty of keeping a building which is being erected, or an embankment which-is being undermined, in a safe condition every moment of the progress of the. work, so far as its safety depends upon the due performance of that work by the servant and his fellows, inasmuch as under the peculiar facts of those cases, the work itself renders the place otherwise safe, to be unsafe. [Armour v. Hahn, 111 U. S. 313-318; Bradley v. Ry. Co., 138 Mo. 293-302, 39 S. W. 763; Rigsby v. Oil Well Supply Co., 115 Mo. App. 297, 91 S. W. 460-466; Gulf, etc., Ry. Co. v. Jackson, 65 Fed. 48-50; Ziegenmeyer v. Goetz Lime & Cement Company, 113 Mo. App. 330, 88 S. W. 139, and
With the rule and its exception thus stated, we are in full accord, and did the record before us show no more than that the plaintiff after having undertaken to preform the labor of removing the joists, and to assist in tearing clown the building, was simply assigned by the employer to labor thereat and was injured as detailed by him because no sufficient supports or bracings were furnished and placed by the defendant, in the absence of the defendant having undertaken to furnish such, we would be forced to the conclusion at once that under such circumstances, the rule of safe place would not obtain here so as to affix any obligation upon the master to render the same reasonably secure for the performance of such labors and that therefore his injury resulted as a hazard ordinarily incident to the employment in which he had embarked and voluntarily assumed by his not having required the master to furnish supports or bracings for the building while the labor was being performed, inasmuch as the work he had -undertaken to do and was performing when injured, was rendering an otherwise safe place, to be unsafe, and the injury resulted from a risk encountered as incident thereto. The application of this principle to this case, under those circumstances, however, would depend entirely upon the fact that the servant had voluntarily entered the employment without requiring the master, and the master not having assumed, to exercise due care to furnish a place reasonably safe for performance of the labor. But that is not the case before the court. There is another fact