simple tool doctrine

The master is not negligent in the case of defective simple tools because the possibility of injury from such tools is so slight as to impose no duty on him to see that they are free from defects in the first instance or to inspect them thereafter; or to put it another way, the master is relieved of the duty to inspect simple tools for defects because the servant's opportunity for ascertaining such defects is equal to or greater than the master's.

It has been held that the rule requiring the master to furnish reasonably safe appliances does not apply where the injury was caused by a “simple tool”; Evansville & R. R. Co. v. Maddux, 134 Ind. 571, 33 N. E. 345, 34 N. E. 511; in another case, that he is not bound to foresee that injuries may be caused by such when they become defective; House v. R. Co., 152 N. C. 397, 67 S. E. 981. It is held in other cases that he is not liable for injury caused by such tools; Dunn v. R. Co., 151 N. C. 313, 66 S. E. 134; Mc Millan v. Minetto Shade Cloth Co., 134 App. Div. 28, 117 N. Y. Supp. 10S1. It is held that the master is not bound to inspect such tools continually, if they are simple appliances of which he keeps a supply on hand; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Forstall, 159 Fed. 893, 87 C. C. A. 73; nor to instruct the servant in their use; Flaig v. Andrews Steel Co., 141 Ky. 391, 132 S. W. 1015. A steel chisel for cutting steel rails is not a simple tool; New York, N. II. & II. It. Co. v. Vizvari, 210 Fed. 118. The cases are collected in 3 Labatt, Master & Serv. § 924a. See Negligence.