Webber v. Piper, 38 Hun, 353............. Wedgewood v. Railway Co., 41 Wis. 478. Page ..214, 225 436 .101, 165, 175 v. Railway Co., 44 Wis. 44..... Weels v. Railway Co., 56 Iowa, 520, 9 N. W. 364.... .2, 101 39 Welch v. Railroad Co., 63 Hun, 625, 17 N. Y. Supp. 342.......... 200 148 Wells v. Coe, 9 Colo. 159, 11 Pac. 50..... 351 v. Railroad Co., 26 Barb. 641, 24 N. Y. 181.. v. Railway Co., 56 Iowa, 520, 525, 9 N. W. 364....147, 162, 194 West v. Railroad Co., 63 Ill. 545..... 474 West Chester & P. R. Co. v. McElwee, 67 Pa. St. 311.. 527 Western & A. R. Co. v. Adams, 55 Ga. 279. Wheeler v. Wason Manuf'g Co., 135 Mass. 294, 298....127, 129, 529 88 Whitwam v. Railroad Co., 58 Wis. 408, 413, 17 N. W. 124..... 32, 105, 199, 204, 442, 458, 462 Wilds v. Hudson River R. Co., 24 N. Y. 430... .495, 500 Willey v. Portsmouth, 35 N. H. 303... 515 Williams v. Railroad Co. (Va.) 15 S. E. 522. 91 v. Railway Co., 43 lowa, 396. 200 V. Railway Co., 109 Mo. 475, 18 S. W. 1098..... 65 Williamson v. Barrett, 13 How. 101.... 446 Willis v. Railway Co., 62 Me. 488.. 476 Willoughby v. Railway Co., 37 Iowa, 432........ 6 Wilson v. Merry, L. R. 1 H. L. Sc. 326, 332. .252, 373 v. Merry, 19 Law T. (N. S.) 33.... v. Railroad Co., 94 Mich. 20, 53 N. W. 797... 130 453 Wilson v. Railway Co., 18 Ind. 226. ....... Page ..279, 283 v. Railway Co., 37 Minn. 326, 33 N. W. 908.. ..40, 149, 171 v. Willimantic Linen Co., 50 Conn. 433, 464........15, 16, 287 Winship v.'Enfield, 42 N. H. 197....... Winstanley v. Railway Co., 72 Wis. 375, 39 N. W. 856.. Wischam v. Richards, 136 Pa. St. 109, 20 Atl. 532.. Wittkowsky v. Wasson, 71 N. C. 451.. Wolsey v. Railway Co., 33 Ohio St. 227, 234...... 435 464 296 500 .72, 75, 89 15, 21, 130, 218, 304 18 436 81 415 517 445 .520, 525 Wood v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 23 Ill. App. 370..... Wooden v. Western New York & P. R. Co. (Super. Buff.) 18 N. Wormell v. Railway Co., 79 Me. 397, 404-406, 10 Atl. 49. 2, 3, 16, 161, 175, 200, 224, 246, 495, 508 Woutilla v. Duluth Lumber Co., 37 Minn. 153, 33 N. W. 551..127, 170 .48, 50, 67, 280 118 Y. Yates v. McCullough Iron Co., 69 Md. 370, 16 Atl. 280....304, 305 Youll v. Railway Co., 66 Iowa, 346, 23 N. W. 736... Zintek v. Stimson Mill Co., 7 Wash. 178, 32 Pac. 997, 33 Pac. 1055 393 precautions after, evidence of inadmissible to show defect, 525 et seq. reasons for the rule, 526. accident and fault combined, rule stated, 444. as proof of negligence, the fact of the accident has no tendency to prove negligence, 508. reasons for the rule, 509. an accident may reveal the cause, 509. APPLIANCES, master's duty in respect to, 2. to provide such as are suitable and reasonably safe, 2, 14. this duty is one of ordinary care only, 3. he is not an insurer of their safety, 14, 15n, 23n. not required to supply the best, 14, 16n, 19n, 24n, 44. or safest, 14, 24n. or newest, 14, 24. but such as are ordinarily sufficient for the purpose, 15, 23n, 24, 25. and can with reasonable care be used without danger, 16, 35. not bound to apply new inventions, 19. or supposed improvements, 19, 44n. may use such as are less safe than others in general use, 20, test of sufficiency is general use, 16n, 24. some courts hold this test not conclusive, 17n, 26, 29. not enough that some persons regard an attachment as a val- "reasonably safe" means safe according to the usages, habits and APPLIANCES-Continued. may use his discretion as to kind, 44n. juries cannot set up a standard of their own, 24, 31. master not liable for hidden defects, 22. nor for inappropriate use, 22. nor for known defects unless he should have known there was master charged with knowledge of that which by ordinary care but not of that he could have discovered, 16n. dangerous contrivances not necessarily defective, 42n. master not required to attend to parts which have to be ad- may continue use of such as have proved safe, 27, 28. general rule has no application to the thing servant required railroads not required to construct appliances after same pat- master charged with notice of the liability of appliances to wear must provide for such contingencies, 33. notice must be brought to master of defects caused by want or to some one whose duty it is to see they are repaired, 21n. a machine in repair is not defective unless so hazardous as to rule that carrier must keep pace with improved methods has see Alabama case, 30. the term "appliances" includes, not only machinery, premises, general rule does not apply to ordinary implements, other than |