Doyle v. White

<p>2. Master and servant—Negligence of master—Defective appliances.</p> <p>A master is not chargeable with negligence because of the breaking of an appliance of the usual size and material, but improperly welded, where the appliance was manufactured by a responsible concern, from which the master purchased it, with others, and it was put in position by a fellow servant, and no weakness was apparent to ordinary observation. 85 N. Y. Supp. 760 affirmed.</p> <p>1. Same—Evidence—Prior accidents.</p> <p>Where a servant was injured in consequence of latent defects in an appliance which, with others, was purchased by the master from a responsible concern, evidence as to whether any of the appliances broke “ the day or a day or two previous,” does not tend to show that the master had notice, before the accident, that the appliances were defective, and was therefore properly excluded. O’Brien, J., dissenting.</p>