That he must exercise ordinary care in executing his employment
is a universal rule. The hazard of working in a mine is greater
than that of working on a farm, or in a cotton factory. An em-
ploye therefore assumes the hazards of the ordinary perils attend-
ing his employment whatever they may be. Says Justice Sherwood:
"Whatever hazards are concomitants of the employment, the em-
ploye assumes necessarily when engaging in the performance of
the duties pertaining thereto." (38)

(36) Latnode v. Harter, 20 Nev. 303, 312; Hughes v. Winona R., 27 Minn. 137;
Pennsylvania Co. v. Lynch, 90' 111. 333; Darracott v. Chesapeake & Ohio R.,
83 Va. 288, 294; Clark v. Richmond & Danville R., 78 Va. 709; Sheeler v. Chesa-
peake & Ohio R., 81 Va. 188; Shanny v. Androscoggin Mills, 66 Me. 420; Mul-
downey v. Illinois Central R., 39 Iowa 615; Toledo R. v. Ashbury, 84 111. 429;
Hathaway v. Michigan Central R., 51 Mich. 253; Liockwood t. Chicago R. &5.
Wis. 50; Memphis & Charleston R. v. Thomas, 51 Miss. 637; Railroad v. Jones,
95 U. S. 439; Juttle v. Milwaukee R., 122 U. S. 189; Illick v. Railroad Co., 67
Mich. 637.
(37) Swoboda v. Ward, 40 Mich. 420, 423.
(38) Cases in which the courts have held that the employe must exercise ord-
inary care when doing his work, examine his appliances, etc.:

Mich.: Ragon v. Toledo R., 97 Mich. 265; Batterson v. Chicago & Grand
Trunk R., 53 Mich. 125; Karrer v. Detroit R., 76 Mich. 400; Bresser v. Flint R.,
56 Mich. 620.
Maine: Langlois v. Railroad, 84 Me. l&l.
Wis.: Writt v. Girard Lumber Co., 91 Wis. 496.
Mo.: Alcorn v. Chicago & Alton R., 108 Mo. 81; Porter v. Hannibal & St.
