Cited by

Co. 139 Minn. 424 , ; Koschman v. Ash, 98 Minn. 312 , , 116 A. S. R. 373.

The defense set up was the “simple tool” doctrine, as announced in Koschman v. Ash, 98 Minn. 312 , , 116 A. S. R. 373, and numerous subsequent cases.

Koschman v. Ash, 98 Minn. 312 , , 116 A. S. R. 373; Kromer v. M. St.

In Koschman v. Ash, 98 Minn. 312, 314 , , 116 A. S. R. 373, the court said: “But the master is under no duty to inspect simple or common tools, or to discover or remedy defects arising necessarily from the ordinary use of such instruments.” A number of decisions from other jurisdictions are cited.

Co. 162 Minn. 90 , ; Koschman v. Ash, 98 Minn. 312 , , 116 A. S. R. 373; Dessecker v. Phoenix Mills Co. 98 Minn. 439 , .

And Koschman v. Ash, 98 Minn. 312 , 108 N.W.

See Koschman v. Ash, 98 Minn. 312 , , 116 Am.

Koschman v. Ash, 98 Minn. 312 , , 116 Am.

Koschman v. Ash, 98 Minn. 312 , , 116 Am.

But the master is under no duty to inspect simple or common tools, or to discover or remedy defects arising necessarily from the ordinary use of such instruments.” Koschman v. Ash, 98 Minn. 312 , , 116 Am.

In other words, the defendant contends that the question of providing the plaintiff with a safe place to work is not here involved, *10 .and that the case comes squarely within the rule above stated concerning the furnishing and inspection of simple and commonly understood instrumentalities by the master, as declared in Koschman v. Ash, 98 Minn. 312 , , 116 Am.

Cf. Koschman v. Ash, 98 Minn. 312 , and cases collected at page 314, , 116 Am.

The rule requiring the inspection by the master of simple and commonly understood instrumentalities furnished his servant is discussed by Mr. Justice Elliott in Koschman v. Ash, supra, page 312, .