The Court does not find any violation of defendant's obligation provide a reasonably safe place for its employees to work, which would seem to be the principal ground on which negligence would Likely be predicated under facts ike these. Everyone knows the occupation of Hinesman is an extremely hazardous tone. It is not pretended the hazard-us character of the business relieves the "defendant of the obligation to provide a reasonably safe place to work, but the doctrine of assumption of risk applies with special force fo electrical "appliances. Grimith v. Washington Water Power Ca, 172 Pac, 822; also 170 Pac, 343," The obligation of the employer does not demand he provide the newest and best. applisnees so long as he pro [vides equipment of ordinary character and reasonably safe, Grimth v.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.