US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

While the employer is under a duty to exercise ordinary care to supply machinery and appliances reasonably safe and suitable for the use of the employee, he is not required to furnish the latest, best, and safest, or to discard standard appliances upon the discovery of later improvements, provided those in use are reasonably safe and suitable.

Subject to this rule, the question whether the appliance which caused the injury in this case, and which was not of the latest type, was reasonably safe and suitable was properly submitted to the jury.

Assumption by a locomotive engineer of the ordinary risk of using a lubricator glass when subjected to a normal bursting strain does not import assumption of an increased and latent danger attributable to the employer's negligence in maintaining the appliance upon an engine carrying an undue pressure.

96 Neb. 419 affirmed.

The facts, which involve the validity of a judgment for damages for personal injuries in an action under the Employers' Liability Act, are stated in the opinion.