The Jasper weekly courier. [volume] (Jasper, Ind.) 1858-1922, 1889-04-26
PENSION DECISIONS.


Rulings showing tho Line Of Policy Adspt
I'd bv the Present Pension Authorities
Cent pituitary Negligence u Isar 90 the
Applicnnt-Cascs In Paint Cited. show
Ing the DI.tinctioa Isetwecn the Lilac of
Duty aud the Revere.
WASHINGTON. April l7.-Assistant
Secretary Busscy yesterday rendered an
important pension decision. overriding
his predecessors decision in the ease Of
W. II. Brokenshaw. la this case, tho
claimant was injured by three unknown
soldiers jumping on hiia while he was
climbing into his bunk. Assistant Secre-
tary Hawkins held That Erolsenshaw was
not injured while in the lii e Of duty. aud
declined 10 grant "A pension on that
ground. Since that deci- on there have
been two other similar decisions, IN which
the question OF c,ntributrry negligence
was involved. Citing these, Assistant
Secretary Bnssey says:
"lu the original AmmeriIan decisinn.as
IN the preceding case OF harrington. the
Department declined 10 recognize tho
doctrine Of contribntorv negligence as
an element in the line Of duty. and failed.
therefore, to notice either the outlines
Or innocence of the injured party. II IL
an mmcmorial and true doctrine Of the
common law that the plaintiff has no
-emcdy If his negligence ia any way con-
Tibutcd 70 the accident Of which he COM
plains, and whereby he suffered injury;
"a. the converse OF this doctrine Is equal
trup--yiz.: That il the negligence OF
he other party was the sole proximate
.ausc Of the injury, then the injured
party may recover. As now correct.
~ held by the department, AM
place. ready 10 perform such duty as
he might be called upon 10 do, and was
guiltleSs of any act contriDutory 20 1t, in
asmuch as the injury alleged as the
ground Of pension happened 10 him with
out any fault or neglect on his part, aud
hence he was entitled 10 a remedy for the
result. That which. in this particular,
was true OF zimmerman. seems to have
been true with increased emphasis ~
Brokenshaw. the claimant Of the pending
motion. Brokenshaw was clearly in the
line OF duty-not passive. only, but act
i've duty--inasmuch as he was in the act
OF climbing into his hunk. the place Of
customary rest. which il was his duty TO
use, and which was provided for him by
the regulations OF the servicc~-when he
received the alleged injury: the said in
jury, though not necessary result. was.
a. 70 claimant,an unavoidable incident os
the service. il having been caused with
out proyocation on his part, by
three soldiers. names unknown,
Jumping on him while he was
climbing into his bunk. lie was thus
in no degree a contributor 10 his own in-
jury. but was merely the helpless re-
cipient of an irresistible assault His
title to remedy is plain: but. il does not
lie against his aSsailauts. II lies in the
system Of pensions provided for dsabili-
ties incurred in the service aud line of
duty. lie was in his proper place, ready
70 perform such duty a. he might be
called upon To do, and the injury alleged
MS the ground Of pension happened "a him
without any fault or neglect on his part"
The doctrine which the departm mt
now avows /, fundamental rule OF jus.
tice. and the application Of il to the
claimant IN this. as in all similar eases,
seems 10 BE- required Wy the true spirit
and intent Of the pension system"
The assignment of error contained in
the motion for recons liberation 81 the de-
cision in this case. fled by the attorneys
Of claimant, Assistant Secretary Bussey
says, is sustained, and the Commissioners
OF Pensions Is directed 70 put Brokers'
slGw's name on the roll OF pensioners
and to rate his disability in accordance
with law.
In two other cases. whore an injury was
received. which the claimant alleges was
incurred Gin the line ~ duty" Assistant
Secretary Busscy holds that they We're
not. In one case the claimant was absent
from his regiment without leave; la an
other by provocation in teasing CON-
NJ vfit oh
are held by Secretary Bussey to have
been received without the line OF duty, I"
| and pensions are denied.