Cited by

Co. 124 Minn. 1 , , supra; Nordberg v. Hall, 116 Minn. 71 , ; Anderson v. Pittsburgh Coal Co. 108 Minn. 455 , ; Fitzgerald v. International Flax Twine Co. 104 Minn. 138 , ; Hjelm v. Western Granite Contracting Co. 94 Minn. 169 , ; 4 Dunnell, Dig.

This is as much true of alleged contributory neglig.ence, Fitzgerald v. International F. T. Co. 104 Minn. 138, 149 , , as of alleged negligence, Peterson v. Fulton, 192 Minn. 360 , .

Fitzgerald v. International F. T. Co. 104 Minn. 138, 149 , .

This is as much true of alleged contributory negligence, Fitzgerald v. International F. T. Co. 104 Minn. 138, 149 , , 479, as of alleged negligence, Peterson v. Fulton, 192 Minn. 360 , .

That plaintiff’s conduct was a “responsible cause” of, rather than merely a fortuitous but “necessary antecedent” to, his injury, and that he was a “last human wrongdoer” (Fitzgerald v. International F. T. Co. 104 Minn. 138, 149 , ) are conclusions inescapable as matter of law.

We cannot say that Ward’s conduct Avas only a “necessary antecedent” and not “a responsible cause,” nor can Ave say, against the necessary implication of the verdict, that it *86 did not have a “natural tendency to produce, in the ordinary course of nature,” the result complained of, within the rule of Fitzgerald v. International F. T. Co. 104 Minn. 138, 149 , .

416; Fitzgerald v. International F. T. Co. 104 *174 Minn. 138 , ; Jacobson v. Merrill & Ring Mill Co. 107 Minn. 74 , 119 N W. 510, 22 L.R.A.(N.S.)

Or, as otherwise expressed, they must have been “sufficiently clear, plain and specific to be intelligently observed” (Fitzgerald v. International Flax Twine Co. 104 Minn. 138, 146 , ); defendant’s duty in the premises being not merely to advise deceased of existing conditions, but to see to it that he comprehended the risk and understood the danger.

Co. 103 Minn. 120 , ; Eitzgerald v. International Flax Twine Co. 104 Minn. 138 , ; Perras v. A. Booth & Co. 82 Minn. 191 , , ; Hess v. Adamant Mnfg.

Fitzgerald v. International Flax Twine Co. 104 Minn. 138 , .

Co., 103 Minn. 120 , ; Fitzgerald v. International Flax Twine Co., 104 Minn. 138 , ; Raitila v. Consumers Ore Co., 107 Minn. 91 , ; Anderson v. Pittsburgh Coal Co., 108 Minn. 455 , .

Fitzgerald v. International Flax Twine Co., 104 Minn. 138 , (plaintiff, engaged in splicing a strand of flax on a machine at rest, was injured by the starting of the machinery without the usual signal); Hjelm v. Western Granite Contracting Co., 94 Minn. 169 , (injury by a rock thrown by a blast, through the negligence of a servant to give customar

416; Bromberg v. Evans, 134 Iowa, 38 , ; Fitzgerald v. International F. T. Co., 104 Minn. 138 , .

Co., 103 Minn. 120 , , Fitzgerald v. International Flax Twine Co., 104 Minn. 138 , , Hess v. Adamant Mnfg.