The same rule applies to animals furnished by the master to his servants that applies to tools and appliances; and it was the duty of appellants to use reasonable care to furnish their servants, including appellee, with a team and plow that was reasonably safe for use in doing the work required to be done by appellee for appellants. Central Lbr. Co. v. Porter, 189 Miss. 66, 103 So. 506; Farmer v. Cumberland Tel. Tel. Co., 86 Miss. 55, 38 So. 775; E.L. Bruce Co. v. Brogan, 175 Miss. 208, 166 So. 350; Warner v. Oriel Glass Co. (Mo.), 8 S.W.2d 846, 60 A.L.R. 448; Pevely v. Daues, 316 Mo. 418, 280 S.W. 835; Nooney v. Pac. Express Co. (8 C.C.A.), 208 Fed. 274; Sloss Sheffield Steel Co. v. Long (Ala.), 53 So. 910; Miller v. Blood, 217 N.Y. 517, 112 N.E. 383; Herbert v. Greenbaum, 248 Mass. 398, 143 N.E. 317; Todd v. Am. Exp. Co. (Mo.), 271 S.W. 880; 39 C.J. 343, Par. 464; Ark. Smokeless Coal Co. v. Pippin, 92 Ark. 138, 132 S.W. 113; Mfg. Fuel Co. v. White, 258 Ill. 187, 81 N.E. 841; Jackson Hill Coal Co. v. Van Hentenryck, 69 Ind. App. 142, 120 N.E. 664; Finley v. Conlan, 152 App. Div. 202, 136 N.Y. Supp. 565; Cooper v. Robert Portner Brewing Co. et al. (Ga.), 38 S.E. 91. If the master knew or by exercise of reasonable care could have known of bad traits of animal, servant may recover.
(1) Appellants' peremptory instructions in the nature of demurrers to the evidence were properly refused. (a) The evidence shows, without room for cavil or dispute, that the defendant company was guilty of a flagrant breach of the personal, non-delegable duty which it owed to plaintiff to exercise ordinary care to furnish plaintiff a reasonably safe place to work and to keep such working place reasonably safe. Koerner v. Car Co., 209 Mo. 157; Bender v. Kroger Co., 310 Mo. 488; Johnson v. Corn Products Co., 6 S.W.2d 569; State ex rel. Duvall v. Ellison, 283 Mo. 542; Johnson v. Am. Car Co., 259 S.W. 444; Johnson v. Brick Co., 276 Mo. 42; Enloe v. Car Co., 240 Mo. 443; Schumacher v. Breweries Co., 247 Mo. 141; Dietzman v. Screw Co., 300 Mo. 196; Chulick v. Am. Car Co., 199 S.W. 438; Bequette v. Plate Glass Co., 200 Mo. App. 523; Bright v. Brick Co., 201 S.W. 641; Landcaster v. Enameling Co., 1 S.W.2d 238; Cook v. Cement Co., 214 Mo. App. 596; Comisky v. Heating Co., 219 S.W. 999; Todd v. Am. Exp. Co., 219 Mo. App. 405; White v. Montgomery-Ward Co., 191 Mo. App. 268. (b) The defendant company flagrantly breached the duty which it owed to plaintiff, under the circumstances, to warn plaintiff — as was the established custom and practice in said defendant's shop — of the fact that the reaming machine, a dangerous and death-dealing device, was being moved so near him as to threaten his safety and render his working place a highly unsafe one; which duty defendant company could not shift or delegate so as to relieve itself of liability for its non-performance.
The disgrace and humiliation that would attend such circumstances, as disclosed by plaintiff's evidence, as well as the jeopardy in which plaintiff's liberty had been placed, are matters of a relative nature, and the law, in its great wisdom, has seen fit to leave the amount given by the jury as compensation therefor. [See, also, Todd v. Express Co., 271 S.W. 880, 885, and cases cited therein; Fuller v. Ry. Co., 270 S.W. 140; Kiener v. Railway, 269 S.W. 636.] We shall not disturb the finding of the jury in this respect, having as it does, the approval of the trial court.