Cited by

Borgerson v. Cook Stone Co. 91 Minn. 91 , ; Koski v. Chicago, M. & St.

Borgerson v. Cook Stone Co. 91 Minn. 91 , ; Smith v. Minneapolis Street Ry.

Borgerson v. Cook Stone Co. 91 Minn. 91 , ; Demerce v. Minneapolis, St.

■ The case is not within the principle of Borgerson v. Cook Stone Co. 91 Minn. 91 , , and Owens v. Savage, 93 Minn. 468 , , where other employees were assigned to work which rendered the position of plaintiff inherently dangerous even though their work were carried on with due care.

Co. 112 Minn. 186 , ; Borgerson v. Cook Stone Co. 91 Minn. 91 , .

Borgerson v. Cook Stone Co. 91 Minn. 91 , ; Berghuis v. Schultz, 119 Minn. 87 , ; 2 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.

*396 Perras v. A. Booth & Co., 82 Minn. 191 , , ; Borgerson v. Cook Stone Co., 91 Minn. 91 , ; Dixon v. Union Ironworks, 90 Minn. 492 , .

On the same principle the duty to warn of an expected explosion is “material.” Carlson v. James Forrestal Co., 101 Minn. 446 , ; Borgerson v. Cook Stone Co., 91 Minn. 91 , ; Hjelm v. Western Granite Contracting Co., 94 Minn. 169 , .

Co., 63 Minn. 428 , ; Borgerson v. Cook Stone Co., 91 Minn. 91 , ; Hjelm v. Western Granite Contracting Co., 94 Minn. 169 , ; Carlson v. Haglin, 95 Minn. 347 , .

In this court Borgerson v. Cook Stone Co., 91 Minn. 91 , , and Jemming v. Great Northern Ry.

The facts bring this case squarely within the rule as stated in Borgerson v. Cook Stone Co., 91 Minn. 91 , : “As to those who are engaged with others in a common employment or in the details of the work, the performance of such duties, though different in kind, requires them to be regarded as fellow servants.” The court, therefore, properly directed a verdict, and the order denying the motion for new trial i

Holman v. Kempe, 70 Minn. 422 , ; Abel v. Butler-Ryan Co., 66 Minn. 16 , (where the question of vice principalship was a fact for the jury); Borgerson v. Cook-Stone Co., 91 Minn. 91 , .

As we have stated in the case of Borgerson v. Cook Stone Co., 91 Minn. 91 , , it is often a question of fact whether a vice' principal is required to perform the master’s duties or not; but where the- facts are clear, and the duty to furnish the proper place for the .servant to work is plain, the duty of the master must be performed at his peril.

Borgerson v. Cook Stone Co., 91 Minn. 91 , .

See also Borgerson v. Cook Stone Co., 91 Minn. 91 , .

The facts bring the case within the decision in Borgerson v. Cook Stone Co., 91 Minn. 91 , , and Perras v. A. Booth & Co., 82 Minn. 191 , , .

Perras v. A. Booth & Co., 82 Minn. 191 , , ; Peterson v. American Grass Twine Co., 90 Minn. 343 , ; Borgerson v. Cook Stone Co., 91 Minn. 91 , .