Cited by

Gray v. Commutator Co., 85 Minn. 463 , 89 N. W. *493 322 ; Johnson v. MacLeod, 111 Minn. 479 , .

Among other decisions, Gray v. Commutator Co., 85 Minn. 463 , , Lund v. Woodworth & Co., 75 Minn. 501 , , Christianson v. Northwestern Compo-Board Co., 83 Minn. 25, 28 , , 85 Am.

832; Tvedt v. Wheeler, 70 Minn. 161 , ; Gray v. Commutator Company, 85 Minn. 463 , ; Seely v. Tennant, 104 Minn. 354 , ; Callopy v. Atwood, 105 Minn. 80 , ; Anderson v. C. N. Nelson Lumber Co., 67 Minn. 79 , ; Swenson v. Osgood & Blodgett Mnfg.

440; Gray v. Commutator Co., 85 Minn. 463 , ; Tvedt v. Wheeler, 70 Minn. 161 , ; Johnson v. Atwood Lumber Co., 101 Minn. 325 , ; Seely v. Tennant, 104 Minn. 354 , .

Gray v. Commutator Co., 85 Minn. 463 , ; Peterson v. American Grass Twine Co., 90 Minn. 343 , ; Dell v. McGrath, 92 Minn. 187, 189 , .

h, 97 Minn. 217 , , this court held, per Mr. Justice Elliott, that the “degree of risk to which the employee may subject himself without becoming responsible for the consequences is not easy to determine, and unless the danger is very obvious and imminent it *32 should be' left for the jury to say whether the act was that of a person of ordinary prudence.” In Gray v. Commutator Co., 85 Minn. 463 , , this court held, per Mr. Justice Lovely, that “while the lack of specific warnings or instruction

Co., 80 Minn. 1 , ; Gray v. Commutator Co., 85 Minn. 463 , ; Torske v. Commonwealth Lumber Co., 86 Minn. 276 , ; Small v. Brainerd Lumber Co., 95 Minn. 95 , .

Co., 79 Minn. 291 , ; Gray v. Commutator Co., 85 Minn. 463 , ; Sloniker v. Great Northern Ry.

It is equally well settled that it is the absolute duty of the master to inform his employee of the dangers incident to the work he is directed to do, as was held in Gray v. Commutator Co., 85 Minn. 463 , , where there are peculiar conditions increasing the risk or the hazards incident to the use of the instrumentality furnished by the master; and this without reference to his age or experience, unless such experience has acquainted him with the danger he incurs.

Gray v. Commutator Co., 85 Minn. 463 , .

Perras v. A. Booth & Co., 82 Minn. 191 , , 85 N. W; 179; Gray v. Commutator Co., 85 Minn. 463 , 89 N. W. *311 322 ; Blom v. Yellowstone Park Assn., 86 Minn. 237 , ; Kerrigan v. Chicago, M. & St.

As to the second ground of negligence, that it was the absolute duty of defendant to inform and instruct plaintiff of the dangers incident to the work he was ordered to do, the principles of law applicable thereto are clearly stated in Gray v. Commutator Co., 85 Minn. 463 , .

Co., 34 Minn. 45 , ; Gray v. Commutator Co., 85 Minn. 463 , .

and regulations, or so obscure as to demand specific warnings of the danger; for it is only where the business is complicated, as well as dangerous, that it is the absolute duty of the master to provide rules (Vogt v. Honstain, 81 Minn. 174 , ; Reberk v. Horne & Danz Co., 85 Minn. 326 , ), or not observable, that notice of danger is required (Gray v. Commutator Co., 85 Minn. 463 , ).