Harris v. . Quarry Co.

CLARK and DOUGLAS, JJ., dissenting. There is error in the admission of the evidence to which exceptions 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 are taken.

The negligence complained of and alleged in the complaint is that defendant company required him to work under a boss, captain or superintendent, and that it was its duty, under their contract, to furnish a boss or superintendent to look after, to see to and protect the safety of its employees, and to guard them against dangers incident to the business of blasting rocks by the use of dynamite, gunpowder and other explosives which were dangerous. And that, on the…