CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Defense of contributory negligence not excluded by this act. Madison v. Clippinger, 74 Kan. 700, 88 P. 260. Overruled: Caspar v. Lewin, 82 Kan. 604, 109 P. 657.

2. Failure to guard machinery prima facie sufficient to establish liability. Brick Co. v. Stark, 77 Kan. 648, 95 P. 1047.

3. This act merely requires that employees be protected from machinery. Henschell v. Railway Co., 78 Kan. 411, 414, 96 P. 857. Overruled: Caspar v. Lewin, 82 Kan. 604, 109 P. 657.

4. Employee injured while resting, by direction of company, may recover. Brick Co. v. Fisher, 79 Kan. 576, 578, 100 P. 507.

5. "Assumed risk" no defense; "contributory negligence" a proper defense. Lewis v. Barton, 82 Kan. 163, 107 P. 783. Overruled in part: Caspar v. Lewin, 82 Kan. 604, 109 P. 657.

6. This statute applicable to any person performing duty for factory. Caspar v. Lewin, 82 Kan. 604, 109 P. 657.

7. Contributory negligence no defense under this act. Caspar v. Lewin, 82 Kan. 604, 109 P. 657.

8. Not necessary to plead practicability of guarding machinery. Gambill v. Bowan, 82 Kan. 840, 109 P. 670.

9. "Assumption of risk" good defense as applied to common-law charge. Sibley v. Cotton-Mills Co., 85 Kan. 256, 259, 261, 116 P. 889.

10. Evidence held sufficient to prove violation of act. Howell v. Cement Co., 86 Kan. 283, 284, 120 P. 350.

11. Expert evidence competent to show practicability of guarding machinery. Warfield v. Morgan, 86 Kan. 524, 121 P. 489.

12. Practicability of guarding knives of planer; device used as guard. Slater v. Railway Co., 91 Kan. 226, 137 P. 943.

13. Safeguard against belts and pulleys extends beyond mere belt-shifting. Rank v. Packing Box Co., 92 Kan. 917, 919, 142 P. 942.

14. Death caused by explosion in powder mill; "factory act" not applicable. Byland v. Powder Co., 93 Kan. 288, 295, 144 P. 251.

15. Verdict, evidence and special questions considered and judgment sustained. Hockman v. Candy Co., 104 Kan. 94, 178 P. 254.

16. Person laboring in municipal electric-light plant within protection of act. Bollinger v. Hill City, 116 Kan. 604, 606, 227 P. 265.

17. Section cited in considering employer's liability to substitute for regular employee. Carter v. Woods Bros. Construction Co., 120 Kan. 481, 483, 244 P. 1.

18. Absence of light in proximity to grinders of mill not within act. Wulfkuhle v. Reynolds, 125 Kan. 59, 61, 262 P. 498.

19. Act is inapplicable to counties. Smith v. Higgins, 149 Kan. 477, 478, 87 P.2d 544.

20. General denial sufficient; allegations as to manner and extent of compliance not required. Bortzfield v. Sutton, 180 Kan. 46, 49, 299 P.2d 584.

21. Federal penitentiary where prisoner was serving as "tool room man" was a "manufacturing establishment" as contemplated hereunder. Huggins v. United States, 302 F. Supp. 114, 115, 117, 118.