O'nBIL V. ST. LOUIS, IBON MOUNTAIN & SOUTHERN BT. 00. 341 �on the trial of Ihe cause, the rules as to variance would have pre- vailed, and the doctrine of jeofails after verdict. �The law as to employer and employe in such cases, laid down by this court at the trial, was the same as deolared by the United States supreme court, and was given in the precise language of that court; yet to avoid misapprehension by the jury, the doctrines stated by Judge Cooley in Mich. Cent. B. Co, v. Smithson, 7 N. W. Eep. 791, were repeated and amplified. Still it is contended that, in the light of the rulings in Porter v. Hannibal a St. Joe Railroad, 71 Mo. 68, this court omitted to charge that the plaintiff was entitled to recover if he could not have known of the danger by the exercise of proper care, however defective the appliances may have been. A careful examination of the latter case shows that'it contains only well- eetablished doctrines, which, if applied to this case, would lead to the same resuit already reached. �It is of great importance to hold employes on railroad trains to the fullest measure of duty, for on their skill and fidelity life and prop- erty depend; and it is equally important for their protection that their employers shall furnish them with reasonably adequate and safe appliances whereby they can perform their duties with safety to them- selves and to the lives and property at stake. To relax the rules so that the employer may esoape liability, would be as detrimental to public interests as if the rules by which the employe is to be governed were to be relaxed in favor of the latter. An employe, as charged in this case, must be supposed to know the nature of the employment, and to possesB the skill and diligence requisite for the proper discharge of his duties. He takes the hazard of the employment. Still, if the em- ployer introduces, without notice to the employe, some new and unu- sual machinery involving an unexpected or unanticipated danger, through the introduction of which the employe, while using the care and diligence incident to his employment, meets with an accident like that in question, it is not unreasonable to hold that the employer should answer therefor in damages. �Both motions are overruled. �NOTE. M>sthe's Liability to Seeva.nt — General Rule. That a servant can- not hold his master responsible for injuries resulting from the negligence of fellow-servants, because this is a risk he has assumed, has remained the rule of law in England ever since the case of Priestley v. Fowler, S Mees. & W. 1 ; and the leading case of Farwell v. Boston, etc., R. Co, 4 Met. 49, announcing the same rule, has been folio wed without dissent in this country. But the ��� �
