File:The Wheel and cycling trade review (1896) (14590318907).jpg

Identifier: wheelcy18211896121897newy (find matches)
Title: The Wheel and cycling trade review
Year: 1888 (1880s)
Authors:
Subjects: Cycling Bicycles Cyclists
Publisher: New York : Wheel and Cycling Trade Review
Contributing Library: Smithsonian Libraries
Digitizing Sponsor: Smithsonian Libraries

View Book Page: Book Viewer
About This Book: Catalog Entry
View All Images: All Images From Book
Click here to view book online to see this illustration in context in a browseable online version of this book.

Text Appearing Before Image:
able was compiled from the repliesgiven to the various inquiries by each con-testant. The company also state that one of theirriders, H. L. Howard, was not allowed toqualify in a second heat, although he easilyqualified. In preference to this, the officials ofthe contest state that Mr. Howards namewas sent to the clerk of course as havingqualified, but that he did not respond to hisname when the second heat was started. FOR LEATHER TIRES. The Graf Manufacturing Company is re-ported as incorporated.in New York City tomanufacture bicycles, tires, etc., with a capi-tal of $100,000. The directors are AndrewGraf, Brooklyn, and Michael J. Fenton,George H. Carpenter, George Pretz and HenryJ. Lemaire, New York. Mr. Graf is the in-ventor of a leather tire, which the companywill manufacture. CLOSED DOWN. Elgin., 111., Aug. 19.—Because of inability toborrow money to pay employes, the ElginSewing Machine Companys bicycle factoryhas closed indefinitely, throwing 150 men outof employment. i896 53
Text Appearing After Image:
Kindly mention The Wheel. 54 August 28, LIABILITY OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYE. A workman does not assume a risk, wherehe merely knows there is some danger, with-out appreciating it. An employer is bound to use reasonable careto see that machinery used by his workmen isin proper condition. The mere fact that a workman received aninjury raises no presumption of negligence onthe part of his employer. Where an employe sustains injury by thecombined negligence of a fellow-workman andhis employer the latter is liable. An employer cannot delegate his duty toprovide his workmen with proper means, fa-cilities and appliances for doing his work. A workman does not assume the risk of in-juries from a latent defect in machinery, be-cause his opportunity of discovery of it is thesame as his employers. An employer is bound to give notice of lat-ent dangers among which the employe is re-quired to work, and of which the employerhas knowledge or should have had knowledge. A person entering the service of a

Note About Images