Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Michigan. The declara tion sets forth that the defendants were in May, 1888, and had been for some time previously, operating at Bessemer, in the county mentioned, an iron mine, called the "Colby Mine." It then describes the general nature and mode of their mining, the use by them of giant powder or dynamite, of great explosive power, in blasting rock, boulders, and ore, the manner of its use, and the dangers attending it from explosion, to which it is liable from great heat or concussion with hard substances in working the mine; and alleges carelessness and neg ligence in handling the same, causing the explosion, destroying the eyes of the plaintiff, and grievously injuring him in different parts of his body, for which injuries damages are claimed in the present action. A more detailed account of the operation of the mine is given in the declaration, and the defendants demanded a trial of the matters set forth, which, under the laws of Michigan, is equivalent to a plea of the general issue in the cause. The plaintiff was a young man of only 24 years of age, and he was not a miner by occupation, nor had he any experience as a miner. He was employed by the defendants chiefly in loading tram cars in their service, and knew little of the different explosives used in the mines. In further history of the operation of the mine, and of the condition of be apprehended from it, does not apply to a case where the minor is told by a foreman to do something else at a machine which he was not employed to do, and the risk of doing which was obvious to him. Crown v. Orr, 140 N. Y. 450. The master's own knowledge of the duties an inexperienced servant is set to do, is not the measure of the amount of instruction in regard to them, which the master is bound to see that such servant receives, but he is bound to provide a competent instructor and to see that such instructor properly instructs. Brennan v. Gordon, 8 L. R. A. 818, 118 N. Y. 489. When a master employs a day laborer to tend a machine at a particular place in a particular manner, which is perfectly safe to do, he is not bound to warn him against the danger of repairing it while in motion, when it gets out of order at a different place. McCue v. National Starch Mfg. Co. 142 N. Y. 106. A servant newly employed, and unacquainted with the locality where he is set to work at night, does not assume the risks thereof, which, however obvious in the daytime, are to him unknown. Fredenburg v. Northern Cent. R. Co. 114 N. Y. 582. The fact that a servant can see a defect in a machine is not enough as matter of law to charge him with the risk of using it, if he did not know that it was a dangerous defect. Kain v. Smith, 89 N. Y. 375. A servant is not bound to examine a platform where he is set to work, to see if it is safe where it is apparently so. Benzing v. Steinway & Sons, 101 N. Y. 547. A master is liable for injuries to a servant set to work in a place which the former knows or ought to know to be unsafe, without informing the latter of the danger. Elledge v. National City & O. R. Co. 100 Cal. 282. An employe engaging in work new to him should be instructed in it, and if he is not acquainted with the latent dangers incident to it, they should be explained to him. Bannon v. Lutz, 158 Pa. 166. It is the master's duty to give a servant notice the engine house at the time of the explosion complained of, and its probable cause, the declaration alleges that the mining was carried on by sinking shafts, driving drifts, stopping and excavating in the manner usual in the business of iron mining; that in performing that work, rock, boulders, iron ore, gravel, sand, and earth were encountered and removed; that in removing them and other hard substances it became necessary to blast the same away by employing giant powder or dy. namite of great explosive force; that the pow. der or dynamite thus used was put up in what were called "sticks," each stick being circular or nearly so, of a diameter of about one and one half inches and about eight inches long, wrapped in a paper *covering; that the sticks [393 were packed in sawdust in wooden boxes, there being about fifty in each box; that giant powder or dynamite, similar in kind or character to that thus used by the defendants, and also caps similar to those hereinafter mentioned, had been in general use in the mines of the upper peninsular of Michigan for twenty years previously; that the powder or dynamite during cold weather became frozen or hard, and in that condition would not explode readily, and it was therefore necessary or at least advisable before using it to soften or thaw it, which was usually done by means of warm water, that being the safest means for that purpose, and when thus thawed or softened it of hazards incident to an occupation, of which the master knows or ought to know, and of which the servant because of his inexperience is ignorant. Consolidated Coal Co. v. Haenui, 146 Ill. 614, Aff`g. 48 Ill. App. 115. One who has power to employ and discharge laborers and is the foreman in his department has the duty of the master devolved on him to instruct employes as to the danger of the employment. Fort Smith Oil Co. v. Slover, 58 Ark. 168. A foreman in charge of laborers engaged in excavating a ditch is not chargeable with negligence in omitting to warn one of them not to work at a place where the banks are not shored up, there being no indication of weakness in the bank at that place, and no special cause to apprehend danger. Burns v. Pethcal, 75 Hun, 437. Failure of the general superintendent of the work of erecting a building, to direct masons accustomed to build their own staging, as to the way in which the work shall be done, or to be present while the staging is put up, does not render the employer liable for an accident to a mason's tender injured by the fall of the staging on account of its improper construction. Burns v. Washburn, 160 Mass. 457. An employe engaged in shoveling coal and removing materials from a dock beneath a trestle does not assume the risk incidental to the tearing down of such trestle while he is at work, where no notice is given him that it will be done; but it is the duty of the employer to notify him of the danger. Northwestern Fuel Co. v. Danielson, 57 Fed. Rep. 915. An employe who has for one and a half years worked for his employer in the same business cannot recover for an injury received by him while so employed, on the ground that he has not received necessary instructions as to the dangers to be guarded against in the performance of his duties. Bentield v. Vacuum Oil Co. 75 Hun, 209. An employe who is ordered to dig a trench so as to shift a telegraph pole, without being notified of the danger, may recover for an injury caused by was exceedingly sensitive and liable to explo- being supplied through a pipe or pipes from a sion from heat or concussion, a fact well | boiler about fifty feet distant; that eighteen inchknown to the defendants; that the usual man- es from one of the drums was a steam heater, ner in which explosions were effected in blast- consisting of about sixty coils of pipe, [394 ing the mine was by placing at the end of a receiving steam from the boiler, intended to stick or piece thereof a cap attached to a fuse, heat the house and dry the clothes of the men which was ignited, and then solid rock and who changed their clothing there when they ore could be blasted out by it; that the caps had become wet from the waters of the mine; were shaped like ordinary percussion caps and that about a foot away from the heater and partly filled with a fulminate, which were against a wall of the house was a shelf, conthen exceedingly sensitive and more powerful sisting of a board fastened to the wall; that and more explosive than the dynamite; that the drums and machinery in the house were in they were liable to explosion from heat or by constant motion day and night, the machinery concussion against each other or against any being kept running even when the drums were other resisting substance, and were put up in not in use hoisting or lowering in the mine, in tin boxes, each containing about one hundred, order to keep the exhaust pipe from freezing; lightly packed in sawdust, and were always that the action of the machinery produced a ready for use, not requiring any thawing before constant jar in the building; that there was affixing the fuse and powder. standing near the shelf and heater a barrel partly filled with ordinary lime; and that on the day of the explosion there was in the engine house, placed there by the direction of the defendants, for the purpose of storing and thawing or softening the same, twelve boxes of giant powder or dynamite, a box and a half lying loose on the shelf, a box about half filled on the floor and against the heater, and, scattered loosely on the floor, and about twenty sticks or parts of sticks, some lying against or upon the iron pipe of the heater, a large quantity of powder lying between the heater and the nearest drum, occupying nearly the entire of the danger, where he is a person of considerable experience. Rooney v. Sewall & D. Cordage Co. 161 Mass. 153. And the declaration further set forth that on the day of the explosion, bereafter mentioned, there was situated on the surface of the mine a house about twenty feet long by eighteen feet wide and one story high, which was primarily intended for a dry or changing house for the captains and bosses of the mine, of which there were about thirteen; that there were in the house two drums, used mainly for lowering timber into the mine; that these drums were circular and about three and one half and four feet in diameter, respectively, and were operated by steam power, the steam the fall of the pole because the props required to hold it in an upright position are not supplied by his employer. East St. Louis Connecting R. Co. v. Enright, 47 Ill. App. 494. It is not the duty of an electric street railway company to notifyla conductor upon his entering the service, of the danger of getting caught in a place 3 inches wide, between a trail car and a doorway in the power-house, through which the car must be pushed to attach it to the dummy. Jennings v. Tacoma R. & Motor Co. 7 Wash. 275. A common laborer who is not instructed as to the risk of operating a dangerous machine, and who is injured thereby while working in the manner in which he was directed to work by the foreman, before he has had a reasonable time to ascertain the dangers attending its use, is entitled to recover for such injury. Chicago Anderson Pressed-Brick Co. v. Rembarz, 51 Ill. App. 543; Barnes v. Rembarz, 150 Ill. 192. Before putting an inexperienced employe in charge of dangerous machinery with the use of which he is acquainted, it is the positive duty of the employer to instruct and properly qualify him for such service, either himself or by a competent person. Lebbering v. Struthers, 157 Pa. 312. An employe sixteen years of age, assigned to work at a buzz saw, cannot recover for injuries received therefrom, on the ground that no instructions were given him as to its use, where he had previously operated buzz saws long enough to know the nature of the machine, and the dangers attending its use. Ogley v. Miles, 139 N. Y. 458. It is not negligence to direct a young man nineteen years of age, who has seen a planing machine in operation, to hang a hood in place in front of the knives, without instructions-especially where he asks for none and gives no sign that be is not entirely familiar with the method by which the order can properly be obeyed. Crown v. Orr, 140 N. Y. 450, Rev'g 54 N. Y. S. R. 308. An employer is not liable for an injury to a servant, received while making repairs npon the machinery used by him, because of its failure to instruct him as to the danger attending such work, where it was not the duty of the servant to make the repairs, but merely to report the fact that repairs were needed, to a machinist in the same building. McCue v. National Starch Mfg. Co. 142 N. Y. 106. Failure on the part of the master to give instruction to his servant, where it is his duty so to do, will not relieve him from responsibility for the negligent act of a fellow servant, causing him injury, where the servant had not acquired knowl edge of such dangers. It is only when he has beer properly instructed, and knows the dangers of his employment, that he stands upon the same footing as any other employe, and cannot recover for an injury caused by a fellow servant. Jones v. Florence Min. Co. 66 Wis. 283, 57 Am. Rep. 269; Curran v. Merchants Mfg. Co. 130 Mass. 374, 39 Am. Rep. 457; Anderson v. Morrison, 22 Minn. 274. The master is bound to make known all concealed dangers. Dowling v. Allen, 74 Mo. 13, 41 Am. Rep. 298; Perry v. Marsh, 25 Ala. 659; Spelman v. Fisher Iron Co. 55 Barb. 151. When, however, the minor or child knows, either from the nature of an obvious defect or otherwise, all the danger of which he could have been warned, then he cannot have been prejudiced by a failure to instruct as to such known and apparent dangers. Coullard v. Tecumseh Mills, 151 Mass. 85; Probert v. Phipps, 149 Mass. 258. To show negligence in the master, it must appear that the danger was such that the plaintiff would not be presumed to know it, and that the master did not give him information of it. Pratt v. Prouty, 153 Mass. 334; Sullivan v. India Mfg. Co. An employer is not liable for an injury to an 113 Mass. 396; Rock v. Indian Orchard Mills, 142 employe caused by a projecting set screw on a re- Mass. 522; Ciriack v. Merchants Woolen Co. 146 volving shaft, because of its failure to warn him | Mass. 182, while he was conducting himself in a careful and prudent manner and not touching, handling, or in any manner whatsoever meddling or interfering with the powder and caps or either thereof, and when he was about two feet distant therefrom, a part of the powder and of the caps, caused by being jarred as mentioned by the machinery and overheated by the steam and steam pipes and by the lime, suddenly, and without any warning whatsoever, exploded with great force and violence, throwing pieces of tin and other hard substances into his eyes and into his body, and throwing him out through the open door about fifty feet distance therefrom, and that he was then and thereby grievously bruised, maimed, and injured, and his eyes were permanently injured and destroyed, and he thereby became totally and permanently blind, and his body in other respects was maimed, mutilated, and injured. space between them, and about three sticks or parts of sticks resting on the lime, and a small quantity of the lime scattered on the floor and upon some of the powder, and on the shelf was a full box of caps, and in the engine house and near the heater was a box partly filled with caps; that during the day of the explosion, and while the powder and caps were located, as stated, the machinery was in full operation, pounding and jarring, and the atmosphere of the room in the immediate vicinity of the powder and caps was heated from the heater and the steam pipes to about 300° Fahrenheit, and the steam pipes were heated to the same degree, and the room being hot the plaintiff was obliged to open the door of the house when the ground was covered with snow to a depth of about a foot lying immediately in front of it and on the walks leading to the house, and several individuals who came into the house on the day of the explosion brought And the plaintiff further averred that the more or less snow on their feet and persons, explosion and the blinding and maiming and 395] *which melted and left water therefrom injury of himself were caused through the ou and about the floor of the house and on the carelessness and negligence of the defendants lime. in storing the powder and caps in the house withAnd it was averred that the powder or dy-out informing him of the increased risk and namite, when thawed out or softened, was dunger of his remaining in employment therein; very sensitive, and liable to explosion from the in thawing and softening the powder by means jarring of the drums and machinery, and the of steam heat, instead of hot water; in thawconstant jarring of the building, and that the ing and storing the powder and caps in the powder was liable to explosion from the heat house where the machinery was in operation, of the steam beater and steam pipes and by the and where the steam heater and steam pipes slacking of the lime in the lime barrel or on were situated, and the lime was kept and used, the powder; that the caps were more sensitive as stated, and in placing, or permitting to be than the powder or dynamite, and more apt placed, the powder and the caps near or than the powder or dynamite to be exploded around the steam heater, as stated, for all of by the jarring and by the heat from the steam which the plaintiff claimed damages. pipes and the steam heater, all of which particulars were well known to the defendants. And the plaintiff further averred that he was hired by the defendants to run and operate the drums in the house, and that then the powder and caps were stored and kept in the powder house of the defendants, and that afterwards they were stored in the engine house; and that he was at the time wholly ignorant that the powder or dynamite was liable to explosion from the jarring of the machinery, or by becoming overheated by the steam heater, or by the heat generated by the lime when slacking, or that the caps were also liable to explosion by such jarring of the machinery, or collision against any other resisting substance in the box, or by the heat from the steam pipes or steam heater; that he had never used the powder or the caps or any other powder or caps similar in kind or character, and was entirely ignorant of their very sensitive character, and that when they were placed in the house he was not, nor was he at any time thereafter and before the accident, informed by the defendants, or any other person, of their sensitive and dangerous character, or that they were liable to be exploded, and that he continued to work in the house entirely ignorant of the danger to which he was thereby subjected. And the plaintiff further averred that on the day of the explosion, while the was engaged about his business in the house, and while the machinery and the steam heater and steam pipes were in operation, and while the powder 396 and caps *and all the other articles and things were situated in the house as stated, and The substantial facts thus stated in the first count are set forth with more or less detail in the other counts of the complaint, of which there are several, and the allegations of negli gence and carelessness on the part of the defendants are repeated, from which the explosion is alleged to have followed, and the dreadful injuries stated to have been caused to the plaintiff, and by which he was also deprived of all means of earning a livelihood. The jury found for the plaintiff and assessed his damages in ten[397 thousand dollars, upon which verdict judgment was entered in his favor, and the defendants brought the case to this court by writ of error. Messrs. A. C. Dustin, George F. Edmunds, James H. Hoyt and Geo. Hayden, for plaintiffs in error: When a servant, in the execution of his master's business, receives an injury which befalls him from one of the risks incident to the business, he cannot hold the master responsible. Tuttle v. Detroit, G. H. & M. R. Co. 122 U. S. 195 (30: 1116); Beach, Con. Neg. 129; Mad River & L. E. R. Co. v. Barber, 5 Ohio St. 541, 67 Am. Dec. 312: Pittsburg, Ft. W. & C. R. Co. v. Bingham, 29 Ohio St. 369, 23 Am. Rep. 751; Ciriack v. Merchants Woolen Co. 146 Mass. 182. An employer is under no obligaton to warn an employe of dangers which are obvious, nor to instruct him in matters which he may fairly be supposed to thoroughly understand. Sullivan v. India Mfg. Co. 113 Mass. 398; Michigan Cent R. Co. v. Smithson, 45 Mich. 212; Wormell v. Maine Cent. R. Co. 79 Me. | unreasonable care is no defense to the action. The duty to give notice to an employe devolves on a master only when inexperience (known to the master) want of capacity, age, or some hidden and latent danger calls for notice. Kohn v. McNulta, 147 U. S. 238 (37: 150). The defendants were not negligent, so far as the proof shows, for putting caps in this place. Huff v. Austin, 46 Ohio St. 387. Juries cannot be allowed to guess as to the cause of an injury. Negligence relied on as producing an injury cannot be proved by mere conjecture. Hewitt v. Flint & P. M. R. Co. 67 Mich. 61. The law presumes that an employe is possessed of ordinary intelligence, and knows those facts which are of common knowledge. Blackburn v. Crawford, 70 U. S. 3 Wall. 194 (18: 192); New York & C. Min. Syndicate & Co. v. Fraser, 130 U. S. 622 (32: 1034); Chicago v. Robbins, 67 U. S. 2 Black, 429 (17: 304). Plaintiff here assumed the risk. Richards v. Rough, 53 Mich. 212; Prentiss v. Kent Furniture Mfg. Co. 63 Mich. 478; Kean v. Detriot Copper & Brass Rolling Mills, 66 Mich. 277; Illick v. Flint & P. M. R. Co. 67 Mich. 632. Messrs. F. O. Clark and R. C. Flannigan, for defendant in error: Plaintiff had the right to rely upon the superior skill of the manager in the matter, even if he had some knowledge on the subject; and he is not guilty of contributory negligence, by doing so. Sherman and Redfield, Negligence § 29; The burden of proof is on the plaintiffs in Powers v. Harlow, 53 Mich. 509, 51 Am. The trial judge cannot instruct the jury to Detroit & M. R. Co. v. VanSteinburg, 17 Mich. 99; Lake Superior Iron Co. v. Erickson 39 Mich. 499, 33 Am. Rep. 423. The question whether a party has been guilty of negligence or not, is one of fact and not of law. Lake Superior Iron Co. v. Erickson, 39 Mich. 492, 33 Am. Rep. 423; Grand Rapids & 1. R. Co. v. Martin, 41 Mich. 667. If an original act was wrongful the injury should be referred to the wrongful cause, passing by those which were innocent. Cuddy v. Horn, 46 Mich. 596, 41 Am. Rep. 178; Patterson v. Pittsburg & C. R. Co. 76 Pa. 389, 18 Am. Rep. 412; Indianapolis, B. & W. R. Co. v. Flanigan, 77 Ill. 365; Toledo, W. & W. R. Co. v. Fredericks, 71 Ill. 294: Beauchamp v. Saginaw Min. Co. 50 Mich. 163, 45 Am. Rep. 30. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Bayfield, 37 Mich. 211; Lake Superior Iron Co. v. Erickson, 39 Mich. 492, 33 Am. Rep. 423; James v. Emmet Min. Co. 55 Mich. 336, 345: Smith v. Penin-protecting the workman. sular Car Works, 60 Mich. 501; Hough v. Texas & P. R. Co. 100 U. S. 213 (25: 612); Wabash R. Co. v. McDaniels, 107 U. S. 454 (27: 605); Washington & G. R. Co. v. McDade, 135 U. S. 554 (34: 235). A company is bound to perform the duty of Counsel had a right to discuss any surround ing condition of heat or atmosphere, or the jarring of the building, or any circumstance or fact from which it might be inferred that to take this dangerous explosive into the place in question was negligence. Marcott v. Marquette, H. & O. R. Co. 47 Mich. 6; Teipel v. Hilsendegen, 44 Mich. 461. Plaintiff cannot be presumed to have assumed the extraordinary risk growing out of the bringing of such explosives where he was thus employed. Lake Superior Iron Co. v. Erickson, and Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Bayfield, supra; James v. Emmet Min. Co. 55 Mich. 336. In the United States courts, the lex loci governs whether it is discoverable from the statutes of the state, or from fixed and settled decisions of the courts of the states. Bucher v. Cheshire R. Co. 125 U. S. 555 (31: 795); Detroit v. Osborne, 135 U. S. 492 (34: 260); Allen v. Gillette, 127 U. S. 589 (52: 271). Ordinary care in the particular business, in which the plaintiff is engaged, is all that is required of him, in order to avoid the claim of contributory negligence. His failure to take 156 U. S. U. S., Воок 39. 30 Farwell v. Boston & W. R. Corp. 4 Met. 49, 38 Am. Dec. 339; Ryan v. Fowler 24 N. Y. 414; Laning v. New York Cent. R. Co. 49 N. Y. 532, 10 Am. Rep. 417; McGrew v. Stone, 53 Pa. 442; Byrne v. Boadle, 2 Hurlst. & C. 722; Scott v. London & St. K. Docks Co. 3 Hurlst. & C. 596. Mr. Justice Field delivered the opinion of the court: The testimony produced on the trial by the plaintiff and the defendants corroborated in all essential particulars the facts set forth in the declaration. It is not, however, as definite in its statement of the extent of the heat of the room on the day of the explosion. The declaration puts it at a very high degree Fahrenheit, and the plaintiff, who was examined on the subject, while he does not designate it by any thermometrial measurement, states that the heat from the heater aud boiler was more than he could stand; and that the room was hotter than anything he had ever known before. He also testified that the machinery in the engine house was in operation all the time in order to keep the steam in the pipes and prevent them from freezing on the outside, and that the building was always shaking, so much so that a man's hat would not stay hung up when the machinery was in motion. He also added that he was not a miner and did not 469 know the first part of mining: that he had never handled any powder in blasting, or handled or worked with the caps used; that he did not know what dynamite or giant powder was made of, and never had any knowledge or experience in the use or handling of explosives, and he never was informed by the defendants or any one else of the danger he incurred in handling the power and caps, or the danger of explosion of either from the great heat in the engine house, or from the concussion of the caps caused by its constant jarring. It is clear from the whole evidence in the case 398]that there was constant danger of explo sion from the great heat produced in the operation of the mine and from the concussion of the caps by collision between themselves and with other hard substances in the engine house and the powder scattered on the floor. The heat and concussion were a continuing danger to the safety of the persons employed in the mine, and of the existence of that danger the defendants were fully aware. Rillston, the plaintiff, who was sworn as a witness in the case, testified that at the time of the explosion there was in the engine house a coil of pipe, five barrels of oil, fourteen boxes of powder, a box and a half on the shelf, about half a box on the floor, a barrel of lime, several sticks in the lime, two boxes of caps, nine rings of fuse, and there was powder on the floor thrown around in all directions. Mr. Sellwood, the general manager of the mine for the defendants, testified that the caps and powder were put in the engine house by his orders, and admits that the usual place previously for keeping them was at the powder magazine. Notwithstanding the continuing danger of explosion, both from the heat in the engine house and its constant jarring, and the confused and disorderly position in which the powder and caps were placed in the engine house, it does not appear that there was any effort made by the defendants, or others acting for them, to lessen either the heat or the jarring. The court instructed the jury that it was a question for them whether there was negligence in the conduct of the defendants in reference to the use of the exploding caps, that is, in putting them in the engine house and in failing to give the plaintiff due warning of their dangerous character; and the jury found against the defendants on the question thus presented to them. All occupations producing articles or works of necessity, utility, or convenience may undoubtedly be carried on, and competent persons, familiar with the business and having sufficient skill therein, may properly be employed upon them, but in such cases where the Occupation is attended with danger to life, body, or limb it is incumbent on the promoters thereof and the employers of others thereon to 470 take all reasonable *and needed precau-[399 tions to secure safety to the persons engaged in their prosecution, and for any negligence in this respect, from which injury follows to the persons engaged, the promoters or the employers may be held responsible and mulcted to the extent of the injury inflicted. The explosive nature of the materials used in this case, and the constant danger of their explosion from heat or collision, as already explained, was well known to the employers, and was a continuing admonition to them to take every precaution to guard against explosions. Occupa| tions, however important, which cannot be conducted without necessary danger to life, body, or limb should not be prosecuted at all without all reasonable precautions against such dangers afforded by science. The necessary danger attending them should operate as a prohibition to their pursuit without such safeguards. Indeed, we think it may be laid down as a legal principle that in all occupations which are attended with great and unusual danger there must be used all appliances readily attainable known to science for the prevention of accidents, and that the neglect to provide such readily attainable appliances will be regarded as proof of culpable negligence. If an occupation attended with danger can be prosecuted by proper precautions without fatal results, such precautions must be taken by the promoters of the pursuit or employers of laborers thereon. Liability for injuries following a disregard of such precautions will otherwise be incurred and this fact should not be lost sight of. So, too, if persons engaged in dangerous occupations are not informed of the accompanying dangers by the promoters thereof, or by the employers of laborers thereon, and such laborers remain in ignorance of the dangers and suffer in consequence, the employers will also be chargeable for the injuries sustained. Both of these positions should be borne constantly in mind by those who engage laborers or agents in dangerous occupations, and by the laborers themselves as reminders of the duty owing to them. These two conditions of liability of parties employing laborers in hazardous occupations are of the highest importance, and should be in all cases strictly enforced. *Further than this it is plain from what [400 has already been stated that the plaintiff knew nothing of the special dangers attending his work, or that he was at all informed by the defendants on the subject. His testimony is positive on this point, and is not contradicted by any one. With that fact shown there was no ground for any charge of contributory negli gence on his part; and with the defendants' negligence established, as stated, there could have been no serious objection to the damages awarded to the plaintiff for the dreadful injuries sustained. The sum recovered was moderate compensation to be awarded to him. Judgment affirmed. 8 156 U. S. |