Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 1).pdf/365

 convey such information to them. Kelly v. Cable Co. (Mont.) 14 Pac. 633. The foreman of a yard who has charge of receiving and piling lumber, in the performance of his duty of maintaining an inspection of the piles in reference to their security against falling upon those employed near them, is not a “mere foreman” or co-laborer, but in the performance of such duty is a superior or vice principal. Baldwin v. Railroad Co. (Iowa) 25 N. W. 918.

This case appears again in 39 N. W. 507, where the court say: “We think the evidence tends to show negligence on the part of the person having charge of the piling of the timber and its care which caused the injury. This person had full control of the timber yard, employed and discharged men, and is to be regarded as a vice principal. He was sometimes absent from the yard, and the care and management of the business and matters were committed to or devolved on another, who took his place and exercised the authority with which he was charged. This other person is therefore to be regarded as a temporary vice principal in the place of his superior.” A foreman directed one of his men to dig gravel under a high bank, who was injured by the bank falling during such employment. Prior to that time it was the custom to station a watchman to give a warning, which was omitted on this occasion. Held they were not fellow servants, and for such negligence the master is liable. Railroad v. Crockett, (Neb.) 26 N. W. 921. Ell was working in a dangerous place by reason of the orders and direction of his foreman. It was not a mere careless act done by the foreman in performing his work as a co-laborer or fellow-servant, but it was a negligent and unskillful exercise of authority over the men in his charge, which caused the injury complained of. Chicago & Alton R. R. Co. v. May (Ill) 15 Amer. & Eng. R. R. cases 320; Heckman v. Mackey, 35 Fed. 353; Brown v. Sennett (Cal.) 9 Pac. 74.

The Minnesota case of Lindvall v. Woods, 42 N. W. 1020, is cited by appellant’s counsel as sustaining his position; but upon examination it appears that the negligent act was not one of supervision, but a part of the work being performed by the men themselves, “The bents of the trestle were not properly braced.”