In the absence of an affirmative showing that an implement supplied was a dangerous one, before an employer can be charged with negligence in failing to supply safe tools there must be some evidence upon which a jury could find (a) a failure to provide, and (b) that the tools furnished were less safe than some other tools that might have been furnished. See Warner et al v. Mitchell Bros. Truck Lines, 221 Or. 544, 550, 352 P.2d 156; Cox v. Sanitarium Co., 181 Or. 572, 582, 184 P.2d 386. The general allegation in the language of ORS 654.305 to the effect that the employer generally failed to provide every device, care and precaution practicable for the protection and safety of the plaintiff adds nothing to the allegations of negligence discussed above.
Plaintiffs had the burden to present evidence pointing out the claimed safeguard, its practicability, and to show that the installation would have prevented the accident. Cox v. Sanitarium Co., 181 Or. 572, 582, 184 P.2d 386. No evidence whatever was offered thereon. 3. Error was assigned for withdrawing from the jury a specification of negligence in paragraph XI (b) charging failure to use "non-ductile material such as chain, angle iron * * *" to prevent the scraper from moving.
In determining whether or not the circuit court erred, we accept that evidence as true and view it in the aspect most favorable to the plaintiff. Cox v. Sanitarium Co., 181 Or. 572, 573, 184 P.2d 386; Marr v. Putnam, 196 Or. 1, 25, 246 P.2d 509. The evidence adduced by appellant, considering the burden cast upon it, is exceedingly meager and at places vague and fragmentary.