Cited by

Co. , 180 Minn. 21 , 230 N.W.

Co. , 180 Minn. 21 , 230 N.W.

682 (1931); Suess v. Arrowhead Steel Products Co. 180 Minn. 21 , 230 N.W.

See, Suess v. Arrowhead Steel Products Co., 180 Minn. 21 , 230 N.W.

See, Suess v. Arrowhead Steel Products Co. 180 Minn. 21

The cases so holding were overruled in Suess v. Arrowhead Steel Products Co. 180 Minn. 21 , .

8 See, Mayes v. Byers, 214 Minn. 54 , 7 N. W. (2d) 403 , 144 A. L. R. 821; Suess v. Arrowhead Steel Products Co. 180 Minn. 21 , .

Such are the child labor acts [Dusha v. Virginia & Rainy Lake Co. 145 Minn. 171 , , 23 A. L. R. 632, cited], and various safety statutes for the benefit of employees [Suess v. Arrowhead *536 Steel Products Co. 180 Minn. 21 , , cited], as to which, the courts have recognized, in this respect at least, the economic inequality in bargaining power which has induced the passage of the legislation.

See Suess v. Arrowhead S. P. Co. 180 Minn. 21 , ; Golden v. Lerch Bros. Inc. 203 Minn. 211 , .

A very great weight of authority establishes the doctrine that an employer who violates such a statute cannot assert contributory negligence nor the assumption of risks as a defense.” In Suess v. Arrowhead Steel Products Co. 180 Minn. 21 , , an employer had violated a statute prescribing condi- *61 ticras to be maintained on the premises used by his employes.

If we assume contributory negligence was a permissible defense, see Suess v. Arrowhead Steel Products Co. 180 Minn. 21 , , yet the fact remains that the issue was submitted to the jury and by them decided adversely to defendants’ contentions.

Suess v. Arrowhead Steel Products Co. 180 Minn. 21 , ; Sandhofner v. Calmenson, 170 Minn. 69, 212 .

To the same effect are Costly v. City of Eveleth, 173 Minn. 564 , ; Suess v. Arrowhead Steel Products Co. 180 Minn. 21 , .

Schaar v. Conforth, 128 Minn. 460 , ; Benson v. Larson, 133 Minn. 346 , ; Suess v. Arrowhead S. P. Co. 180 Minn. 21 , .

Suess v. Arrowhead S. P. Co. 180 Minn. 21 , .

This court has held that the defense of assumption of the risk is not available to an employer in an action by his employe for damages proximately caused by the violation of a statutory duty; Suess v. Arrowhead S. P. Co. 180 Minn. 21 , , though it is conceded to be still available where no violation of a statutory duty is involved.

See Suess v. Arrowhead S. P. Co. 180 Minn. 21 , .

Cohen v. Silverman, *479 153 Minn. 391 , ; Frederick v. McRae, 157 Minn. 366 , ; Kennedy v. Hedberg, 159 Minn. 76 , ; Dohm v. R. N. Cardozo & Brother, 165 Minn. 193 , ; Sandhofner v. Calmenson, 170 Minn. 69 , ; Christopherson v. Custom Laundry Co. 179 Minn. 325 , ; Suess v. Arrowhead S. P. Co. 180 Minn. 21 , ; Saunders v. Yellow Cab Corp. 182 Minn. 62 , ; Peterson v. Miller, 182 Minn. 532 , ; Wicker v. North States Const. Co. 183 Minn. 79 , .

136 ; Suess v. Arrowhead S. P. Co. 180 Minn. 21 , 230 N.W.

Co. v. De Atley, 241 U. S. 310 , 36 S. Ct. 564 , 60 L. ed. 1016; Suess v. Arrowhead S. P. Co. 180 Minn. 21 , .