The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1883-02-26
EMPLOYER AND EMPLoYE.
Tho Law OF Liability For Injury IN
~ o. . lAiW' 'uuired IntOI

spiingheld Republican.
Humane and democratic as the State OIL
Massachusetts processes to be, it il mn.
doubtedly behind Great Britain, Prussia
and several American states in denying
the liability OF employers for injuries "a
employees. We have chung to the old Eng.
lish common law, until it works rank in.
justice to men in the highly complex indus.
tries OF modern life. Judy 70 Redtield well
describes what he calls ''the Massachusetts
doctrine" as havinga tendency TO flavor
corporations at the expense Of servants"
The bureau OF statistics OF labor, under the
direction OF the last Legislature, has had
the state OF the law upon the point. in this
and other countries, investigated and issues
its reportin advance sheets for the use Of
the present Legislature. Charles q. Fall
OF the Suffolk bar has prepared the report.
The present law, as administered by the
courts OF Massachusetts, Is substantially
that the employer is liable for the acts OF
his servants, so long as they act within the
scope OF his authority, but the common
employees THAT is all employed by one
master, be It o corporation or whatever It
may bel, engaging TO serve a master, take
the risks to which they are exposingth them.
selves. But the master, said Judge Gray,
in n case, Ia "bound 10 use ordinary care
in providing his structures and engines
and in selecting his servants, and is liable
TO any Of their fellow.servants 70 r his
negligence in this regard" The difficulty
Ia that in some employments neglect itself
is ordinary, and hence Ordinary care" is
not sufficient to prevent waste of life. Upon
| the railroads Of this state in the last year
l0S employees were injured, SO OF whom
were killed, and this Is three times the
number injured In 1875. In the three
years, 1867, there were 24l employees in.
jured; in the three years, lSS0-S2, 555 were
injured, showing that the stress OF business
comes upon the men with fearful effect.
The sentiment Of the bar is all against
any change; they pooh.pooh the idea that
an employer should at all be responsible
for the death or injury OF an employe on
account OF the fault OF a fellow.laborer.
All perhaps who work for q common mas.
ter are common workmen-the engineer
with the superintendent or with the
switch.tender whom he never spoke with
or with the telegraph operator whom he
never saw. Every great industrial enter
prise is a great machine, in which all are
working for a common end, each upon his
own duties, for which alone he is respon.
sible. The railroad is a good example OF
this fact, although common carriers should
have no greater responsibility toward EN-.
ployes tfan other enterprises involving
similar dependence Of laboren upon each
other and upon the conditions in which
they work. The principle OF justice on
which employers liability should be estab.
lished is the TACT in highly complex indus
tries the risk are more apparent
and. palpable J to the employer
than to the person seeking employment
and that they are more nearly under the
control Of the employer. Another reason
Is that certain 'employments necessarily in
volve risk, and that that risk should be
borne by the employer who disposes ofthe
product or serves the publicand has OPP
p~ortunity to charge over the price OF this
risk to the consumer, whereas the employe
has no such chance. Suppose the railroads
were obliged TO pay the damage inflicted
on employees in case Of no contributory
negligence on the part OF the injured; it Is
easy enough for the railroads to meet this
charge in regulating their rates for trans
portation. But Il the laborer has to meet
Il, he has no means OF reimbursin himself,
either in advance or subsequently,; much
less have his family, II he Is Killed. The
general public would much rather meet
this charge by an infinitesimal increase
upon the rates OF transportation than by
increased taxation for poor relief.
The usual objection is that the iuries
always find against the corporations. This
does not seem forum the corporations in
the case Of passengers, and proves too
much II it proves anything. The law Of
liability as regards passengers has worked
well and vastly increased the safety Of
railroad travel.
Other States have laws which recognize
the duty OF the employer to bis servants in
these highly Observation-Disclosures. Georgia,
Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Wisconsin and
Rhode Island make railroads liable for
Injury to employees in cases where there is
no contributory negligence on the part OF
the injured. The law OF France and all
the Latin nations is thus stated "The
master Is liable for the injury which one OF
his servants or workmen has caus-
ed by negligence to another servant or
workman In q work which they were
charged to carry out in common. The
wages agreed upon between the servant
.and his master cannot exempt the master
from his liability toward the party in
jnred." The law OF Prussia, as adopted in
1871, declares that the manager Of . rail-
road Is liable, unless he proves that the
accident took place by the default Of the
person killed or injured, and establishes a
similar liability IN the case OF quarries,
mines and factories. The law OF England,
arrived at in 1880 after years Of inyestiga.
ton and research, provides that common
employment shall not be a defense from
liability when a workman receives injury
under any OF the following circumstances:
l. BY reason OF any defect in the ways,
works, machinery OF plant connected with
or used in the business OF the employer,
which defect existed in consequence Of the
negligence OF the employer, or Of an en-
ploye by him entrusted with the duty Of
guarding against any defect 2. By reason
Of the negligence Of any person entrusted
with superintendent. 8. By reason OF the
negligence OF any superior workman whose
orders the person injured was bound TO
obey. 4. By reason Of obeying proper
rules or bylaws, or any rule OF bylaw
duly approved by certain public officers
therein specified. 8. BY reason OF the neg.
~ligence, on q railway, Of any person at the
time in control Of the train.
Cannot the Commonwealth OF Massa.
chusetts give the laborers Of the State as
much protection as the kingdoms Of Great
Britain and Prussia and Italy do theirs?
Here is the bill which Is suggested to cover
this subject: 81!
An act relating to the liability Of en-
ployes for personal i~niuries sustained by
their employee.
Section !. Wheneyeran action Is brought
against an employer to recover damages
for personal injuries received by an en-
ploye while in the discharge Of his duty,
lact that the injury was caused by or
through the negligence Of fellow employe
shall not prevent the recovery Of damages,
H. - ALL. Il