Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1890-02-14

rations which compels them TO act by
agents only; doubtless the United
) States Supreme Court would do the
same i'll proper case.
Yielding our adherence to the doc
trine that to exempt the master and
make the two servants fellow servants,
they must be engaged in the same
common employment, in the same de-
partment OF service, and act under the
same immediate direction, we look
vainly for any agreement among the
courts us to what common employ
ments' are. The diversity of employ
ments and myriad circumstances un-
der which men act and are injured,
make it impossible to define them.
Some general definitions there are,
and with them each case must be COM
pared as it arises, and the rules eX-
tended so as to make reasonable ap-
plication. We find in Crispin VS..
Rabbit, 81 New York, SIG, what seems
to Ills the most correct, brief statement
OF some of the points to be regarded.
Ill cases of this kind, which has come
to our notice. The court said, D. $40.
"The liability of the master does not
depend upon the grade or rank of the
employe whose negligence causes the
injury. \ superintendent Of n fac
tory, although having power to EN-
ploy men, or represent the master in
other respects, is, i'll the management
OF the machinery, a fellow servant of
the other operatives. On the same
principle, however low the grade or
rank OF the employe, the master is LA
BILE for injuries caused by him to
another servant, ii they result from
the omission of some duty of the mas
ter, which he has confided to such in
ferior employe. Flike VS.. r. r. Co..
53 New York, $40. "i
The liability of the master is thus
made to depend upon the character of
the act in the performance of which
the injury arises, without regard to the
rank OF the employc performing it.
II 1T is one pertaining to the duty the
master owes to his servants, he is re-
sponsible to them for the manner OF
its performance. The converse of the
proposition naturally follows. If the
act Is one which pertains only to the
duty OF an operative, the employe per-
forming it is mere servant, and the
master, although liable to strangers, is
not liable to a fellow servant for its
improper performance. Woods Mas
ter and Servant. 5,43S. 90 "-i .ia. i
These are flexible rules in which
the doctrine that the delegated pow
ers and duties Of the master make a
servant, at times, the very master
himself as to other servants, is
the central feature; and they seem
to us eminently just to beth master
and servant. They would fully sus-
tain the the decision in Brodeur vs..
Valley Falls Co. (Rhode Island) II
Atlantic Rep, "a, cited by plaintiff in
error. There a machine repairer in a
cotton mill while crossing u yard ad-
joining the mill, was killed by an
empty barrel thrown from the fourth
story by negligent mill operative,
and it was held that they were fellow
servants. Under these ruled Bucklin,
the foreman of the Port Madison Mill,
when on Saturday he assisted Beaton
to saw the ships knees, was the fellow
servant OF Beaton, although ordinar-
narily he might not have been so in
any matter wherein was involved the
matter OF providing safe and sound
machinery for the saving of the
knees, that being duty due from
Sayward, the performance of which
was confded to Meigs and Bucklin !;
but had Bucklin >there carelessly
handled u knee so that Beaton had
suffered injury therefrom, there
would have been no wrong imputable
to Sayward. And so, when we come
to apply this law to Carlson and Bea-
ton ut the time of the formers injury.
II Carlson was servant at all, we are
clearly led to hold that he was fel.
low servant with Beaton. We are
urged to the consideration that Bea-
ton was ship carpenter, employed
by Sayward to repair ships, and there
fore III different kind of labor from
that OF defendant. The complaint de-
nominated him Superintendent hav-
ing charge and control of carpenters"
engaged in repairing the bark Vidette.
But looking the testimony offered to
sustain that allegation, we do not find
it sustained, but, on the contrary, it
clearly appeared from that testimony,
as well as from that produced by the
other side, that Beaton was simply the
mill carpenter, employed to make re-
pairs whenever needed about the es-
tablishment. Sometimes he had men
working with him whose work he did
superintend, but in the execution OF
the work he was only fellow servant
with them. At this unfortunate time,
his work was in making some repairs
to the Videttc, his masters vessel, by
which part of his business there carried
on was prosecuted. The repairs to
the vessel were entirely consistent
with Beaton's general occupation.
He was still mill hand just as much
rs the fireman or engineer. In fact,
were we to seek nice distinction, we
might justly say, that the saving of
ships knees was clearly within the
line of the mills work; that it made
no difference that they were sawed for
the Vidette; that in saving them, Bea-
ton, for the time, became a mill saw
yer; that in removing the knee on
| L. -. l.. i