Butler citizen. [volume] (Butler, Pa.) 1877-1922, 1880-08-25
can news in the English papers is about
Dr. Tanner in New York or the price
of stocks or cotton. Goodbye.
Yours ever, RoBT. A. EDWARDS
LIABILITY OF EMPLOYERS.


LIABILITY OF EMPLOYERS
The earnest discussion now going OF
in England over the Employers Lila
bility bill pending in Parliament ma,
well interest the people of this country
The law which it is proposed to chang
| affects employers and workmen in ever,
field of industry, and it is substantial,
the same as the law of this country
When train on an English railway il
wrecked through the carelessness of ;
switch tender the company is liable il
damages to every passenger who hai
lost his life. But if the engineer, fire
man or guard is manned or killed th,
company cannot be made to pay far
thing to the injured man or his family
In other words, employers are liable t.
strangers, but not to their workmen
for injuries caused by the negligence o
an employee. This is a recognized
principle of law in England and the
United States, but it may be said tC
be peculiar to these two countries. L
is not common on the Continent of Eu
rope, if indeed it is known there. Ir
France, Germany, Belgium and Other
countries the law holds an employer to
strict accountability for the careless
ness of his workmen, and recognize:
no distinction between the claim of al
injured employee and that of stranger
The English and American rule ha:
been criticised as anomalous. But, un
like very many anomalies in the juris
prudence of these countries, it is not al
inheritance of early times, but is of re
cent origin. In the United States the
doctrine seems to have been announced
for the first time by the Supreme Court
of South Carolina in l841, and in The
following year it was approved in al
elaborate opinion delivered by Chic
Justice Shaw, of the Massachusetts
Supreme Court. AT this time little
had been he rG of the theory in Eng
land, and it did not becon a settled
principle of law in that co ,ntry unit
1853, when it was affirmed by the
Honse of Lords.
The pending bill is not intended t.
make sweeping reform in the law
1t does not set aside entirely the rule
that has grown up in the Courts, but
in certain specified cases it abolishes
the existing distinction between 6
stranger by making employers liable
to both on equal terms. This distinc
ton, it is claimed, is unsound in princi
pie and unjust in operation. In de
fence of the existing law, it is argued
that workmen-railroad employees, fol
instance-voluntarily assume the risks
of their employment while travellers
do not assume the risks of travel and
moreover, that the company's liability
to passengers is created by an implied
contract which does not exist between
the company and its survants. Tt
this the reply is made that workmer
no more assume the risk of accidents
arising from the carelessness of othel
servants than do passengers, and thai
the principle of liability to passengers
| is not based on contract but is an ar
bitrary rule of law, since the liability
of the company extends in many cases
some who are not passengers and will
whom it has no contract. Lord JUS
tice Bramwell has gone so far as tC
condemn the whole principle which
holds employers liable for the negli
gence of their employees. This view
is not without plausibility. But while
employers are bound to respond i,
damages to the general public for the
carelessness of their servants it seems
neither reasonable nor just to deny the
benefit of this rule to a workman OF
other ground than that of common
employment. To hold corporation
liable to passenger, but not to con
ductOr, when both have been injured
without fault Of their own, but through
the gross negligence OF switch tender
is, to say the least, inconsistent. Il
cannot be denied that the existing law
often operates unjustly against work
men. The proposed measure may b'
open to criticism in some of its feat
ures, but the general reform which il
seeks to accomplish must commend
itself to thoughtful and candid minds