42 _ . rnnicnsr. narorrrmic.
' murrer, that the duty of the employer was stated too broadly, and that the
.; complaint. should be amended so as toaconflne that duty to the exercise of
_ “reasonab1e care and diligence. " 1 z , `
Q At Law. Action for damages for personal injuries. On demurrer to
complaint. V ` ` ‘ I  
`T.‘M. Patterson, for plaintiil'. i ~ I A
R. S. M0h··o1s¢m, for defendant. — · ‘ a 1
“ Bsawan, J. In this case there is a demurrer to the complaint. The
cause of ’ action is one for personal injuries. There is really no difference
between counsel on both sides and the court as to the rule of law appli-
cable to cases of this kind. The complaint charges a breach of duty on
·the part of the defendant in failing to keep a ladder in good condition,
one of the rounds of which broke, and dropped the plaintiff, causing the
`accident; It is not the absolute duty of an employer to see that the in-
struments and machinery he provides are safe. The limit of his duty
isireasonable care and precaution-in that respect; I think that, taking
thecomplaint as a whole, it may be an open question whether any more
than a breach of- such duty is charged, and yet, in the clause stating the
duty separately, it is stated broader than the law? imposes. Thepartic-
ularclausereads thus: e V ‘- ‘
· T “Tbat it was the duty of said defendant companyito keep the said ladder in
good,·safe,and securecondition, so that those in its employment might ascend
and descend- theshaft upon. the same, secure from harm by reasonof the
breaking of orinjury. to the same. " i —
.> That, construed strictly, is an afiirmance that it was an absolute duty,
¤and= a breach of that duty necessarily would cause liability, and in cases
iof this kind, where the form of the complaint is challenged in the first
-instance,—oases in which we all know that the sympathies of the jury
qnaturally go out to the injured person,-—~I do not know but what it is
wfair and; right that the language of the complaint shouldbe made tech-
mically accurate in describing the duty resting upon the defendant. So,
dlthougb tbereis general language in the subsequent part of thee0m-
plaint that the defendant negligently and carelessly did so and »so,`I
think, as this is challenged in the first instance, it would be no more
than fair to sustain the demurrer, and at the same time permit an amend-
ment by interlineation in this clause, so that it shall read that it was
the duty of said company to use reasonable care and diligence to keep
the said ladder, etc.; or puttin at the close ofthe sentence, "So far as
the same could be accomplished by the exercise of reasonable care and
diligence," so that, when_ the complaint is read, to the jury, and com-
mented on, it may appear that the limit of its duty is the exercise of
reasonable care and prudence. » =r V V - ·   ’
  * EA;   liability tor injgiries tohis seryant for defective arrangements isnot that
··0f_arr insurertor of a guamu r. The qliesuon 1B one ot reasonable care and diligence.
{ Battersohy. Rarlwa V Co. (Michg 13 _. W. Rep,508 18 N. W. Rep. 584; Richards v.
· R0ugl1,=(M1ch.9 18   lisp. 78 ; Railroad Co. v. Wagner, 1éKan.) 7 Pao. Rep. 204;
1.Piercev..Mi1ls, (Ga.£4._S. E. Rep.’381; Manufacturing Co. v. cCormick, (Pa.) 12 Atl.
~ · Rep.278; Bowen v. arlway Co., (Mo.) 8 S. W. Rep. 230.