gerous to expose between the same the hands, arms or persons of those engaged in coupling, all employes are enjoined before coupling cars or engines to examine so as to know the kind and condition of the draw heads, draw-bars, links and coupling apparatus, and are prohibited from placing in the train any car with a defective coupling until they have first reported its defective condition to the yardmaster or conductor. Sufficient time is allowed, and may be taken by employes, in all cases to make the examination required." Our first concern is to ascertain the true scope of this regulation. It will hardly be claimed that it was the purpose of defendant to impose upon the plaintiff all the duties of a car inspecter, so far as the proper discharge of such duties were essential to the protection of the plaintiff. Such an interpretation would in effect exempt the defendant from liability for its own negligence, however gross. The same facts which would convict the defendant of carelessness would, under such a view of the rule, likewise convict the plaintiff of contributory negligence in every instance. The employer would thus save itself from liability, although negligent in the discharge of the duties of a master. It is an elementary rule of construction that the courts shrink from so interpreting the language employed by a common carrier as to exempt it from the consequences of its own negligence. No such interpretation will be adopted, unless by the use of the word "negligence," or by other explicit language, the court is driven to such view. Then the provision so exempting from negligence is often struck down as opposed to public policy. (Whether the doctrine relates to an employe as well as to the public it is not necessary to decide.) It would be unreasonable to give the rule this construction. It would not be practicable for one employed in coupling cars to devote the same amount of time to and exercise the same degree of care in the inspection of the apparatus employed in the coupling of cars, and of such parts of the car as are immediately connected therewith, as a car inspector must. To exempt the company from liability, something more than a short examination must be made by the car inspector. There may be obscure defects which the exercise of due care renders it imperative he should discover, and for
