their duties

史玉柱和周星

their du技术        ties, whic房间        h were to 报告        watch for 三份        glars, or [url=http://guba.eastmoney.com/look,000002,7014812468.html]手拿        [/urllars, or anything that might happen. He has been thoroughly familiar with the alley, steps, and premises, generally, for years. On the occasion of the accident upon which this action rests, he fell down the steps, or out of the door, and his arm was broken, and he haCheap Dre Beats Headphones s recovered a judgment for 3,175, from which the defendant has appealed.Negligence.1 The undisputed evidence shows that the plaintiff approached the door from the Inside of the storeroom. Admittedly he saw the doors and knew all about the steps and surroundings. He testified that the steps were not out of repair, and that the reason that he fell was that he made a misstep. He explained this by saying that when he reached the door which he could see, he stepped out over the first step down, thinking he was stepping on the threshold, and fell, which he thought he would not have done, had there been a light in the alley.We agree that it was not negligence on the part of defendant to leave this alley unllghted. These three steps consisted of a box or step made for the purpose, which constituted the first step up. The second step consisted of the brick wall, finished with concrete between the door Jambs, while the third was the floor of the stockroom; there being no threshold upon it. These steps were not materially different from steps used at the entrances of dwellings, and they are In most common use. There is no duty to light those or these for the use of servants, who, being familiar with the premises, take the chances of falling. If it Cheap Beats By Dr Dre Is dark, the need of care in using them is greater. ThDiscount Beats By Dre e defendant may have had cogent reasons for omitting to light the premises.Promise to Light2 Counsel for plaintiff allege that a promise was made to the plaintiff that an electric light should be put up between the doors in the alley, and the plCheap Beats By Dre aintiff testified that he made such a request to the assistant superlntendant some days before the accident, and that he said that he would see about it, or that he would have It done. It was not done, and a few days later plaintiff fell, as stated.The plaintiff relies on negligence in omitting to provide a light. We have held that it was not negligent to keep the place dark, and even if such a promise was made the place was a reasonably safe one within that rule; no less safe by reason of the promise. As to the promise, it Is denied by the assistant superlntendant; but, were it not denied, if upon reflection the manager had thought best not to have a light there when the subject was brought to his attention, his failure to authorize the light would not make defendant liable for the omission, for the steps were already a safe place, upon the principle that: Before the master can be held liable, as for failure to perform a promise to remove a specific danger, it is clearly necessary to show that the existing conditions were of such a nature that their maintenance implied culpability. 1 Labatt, M. & S., 1194. It was not culpable in de fendant to ask its watchmen ogo down these steps in the dark.In Leonard v. Herrmann, 195 Pa. 222, 45 Atl. 723, it was held: In an action by the operator of an elevator against his employer to recover damages for personal Injuries which occurred in the operation of the elevator, there is no error in withdrawing the case from the Jury, where the evidence showed that the elevator was not out of repair, that it was the kind In ordinary use, and that the plaintiff had operated it for at least one year. The fact that a week before the accident plaintiff had told the defendant's superintendent that there should be guards at the sides of the elevator, and that the superintendent had promised to provide them, is immaterial, unless it appeared that there was in fact a defect, which It was the employer's duty to remedy. This not appearing, no promise made by the superintendent could give rise to a duty not recognized by law.The court said: The plaintiff's main reliance was upon his testimony that a week before the accident he had told the superintendent that there should be guards at thesides of the