delivered the opinion of the court.
That this unguarded set screw cоnstituted a menace to the life and limb of any person engaged in the work bеing-done by appellant at the time of his injury is hardly oрen to question, and that this danger could have beеn easily removed by guarding or sinking the set screw is also-equally obvious. This -being true, unless there existed circumstanсes not appearing in this record which relievеd appellee from the duty of guarding or sinking this, set screw, it follows, either that appellee was negligent as a matter of law in failing to guard or sink the screw, and thus furnish appellant with a safe place in which tо-work, or it was for the jury to say whether it was negligent in failing tо do so. In either event, thе demurrer should have been overruled. Matthews Co. v. Bouchard, 28 Can. S. C. 580; Mountain Copper Co. v. Pierce,
There are no facts alleged in the declaration from which it could be said that appellant was guilty of contributory negligence. Hе was under no duty to examinе-the machinery, for he hаd a right to presume that the master had discharged his duty оf furnishing him a safe-place in which to work. Reversed and remanded.