 But, in truth, the mere relation of the master and the servant never can imply an obligation on the part of the master to take more care of the servant than he may reasonably be expected to do of himself.  The Law Quarterly Review - Page 220edited by - 1885Full view - About this book
 | Francis Stack Murphy, Edwin Tyrrell Hurlstone, Great Britain. Court of Exchequer - Law reports, digests, etc - 1838 - 416 pages
...truth, the mere relation of master and servant never can imply an obligation, on the part of the master, to take more care of the servant than he may reasonably be expected to do of himself. He is, no doubt, bound to provide for the safety of his servant, in the course of his employment, to... | |
 | Charles Greenstreet Addison - Contracts - 1847 - 988 pages
...does not imply from the mere relation of master and servant an obligation on the part of the master to take more care of the servant than he may reasonably be expected to take of himself." («') Neither is the master liable (6) Lt ioirv. Briitou, 4 Campb. 134. v. SAow,... | |
 | Charles Manley Smith - Labor laws and legislation - 1852 - 638 pages
...mere relation of the master and the servant never can imply an obligation on the part of the master to take more care of the servant than he may reasonably be expected to do of himself, lie is no doubt bound to provide for the safety of his servant, in the course of his employment, to... | |
 | Michigan. Supreme Court, Randolph Manning, George C. Gibbs, Thomas McIntyre Cooley, Elijah W. Meddaugh, William Jennison, Hovey K. Clarke, Hoyt Post, Henry Allen Chaney, William Dudley Fuller, John Adams Brooks, Marquis B. Eaton, Herschel Bouton Lazell, James M. Reasoner, Richard W. Cooper - Law reports, digests, etc - 1896 - 776 pages
...the ordinary dangers incident to the employment, and that " an obligation on the part of the master to take more care of the servant than he may reasonably be expected to take of himself will not be implied." 6 — The rule laid down in Fancell v. Railroad Corporation,... | |
 | Joseph Story - Agency (Law) - 1863 - 704 pages
...mere relation of the master and the servant never can imply an obligation, on the part of the master, to take more care of the servant than he may reasonably be expected to do of himself. He is, no doubt, bound to provide for the safety of his servant, in the course of his employment, to... | |
 | John Scott, Great Britain. Court of Common Pleas - Law reports, digests, etc - 1865 - 566 pages
...mere relation of the master and the servant never can imply an obligation on the part of the master to take more care of the servant than he may reasonably be expected to do of himself. lie is, no doubt, bound to provide for the safety of his servant in the course of his employment, to... | |
 | Theophilus Parsons - Admiralty - 1869 - 724 pages
...The mere relation 6f master and servant does not create any implied duty on the part of the master to take more care of the servant than he may reasonably be expected to do of himself. .... The reason for the rule is, that the servant undertakes to run all the ordinary risk of service,... | |
 | Law - 1869 - 820 pages
...that the mere relation of master and servant never can imply an obligation on the part of the master to take more care of the servant than he may reasonably be expected to do of himself. In our own state, the point has never been fairly presented. In Kce.f/an v. Western Railroad Co., 4... | |
| |
