Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-02-16

line case OF Bell versus the New. YORK,
Lake Erie and Western Railroad Company
(112 Pennsylvania Reports, page 400. is
much commented on by lawyers. At Sus-
quehanna, a junction Of two branches OF the
road, the foreman Of the turning department
of the foundry, having charge also OF gas and
steam fitting, ordered gas pipe laid under
the tracks to the foundry. Instead of laying
it through the frozen ground the workmen
placed it overhead. Bell was knocked of the
top of car by it. He made complaint to the
foreman; but it was not taken down accord
ing to promise. Bell was knocked off again
the next morning and severely hurt. Suit
was brought, and verdict secured for 81, 900
damages. The railroad company took the
case to the Supreme Court. Its unanimous
decision was
MEN IN COMMON EMPLOYMENT.
It is too plain for argument that the men en-
gagged at work in these different shops, includ-
ing tie different foremen and gang bosses, were
in the same common employment 1t is also
equally clear that the plaintiff and the rest OF
the gang, who with him were running cars in
and out of the shop to take in supplies and to
take out finished work, were in the same COM
mon employment The difference in rank or
position makes no difference as has been re-
peatedly held. The gang laborer and the gang
boss or foreman occupy precisely the same posi-
tion. 1t is only where the master or superior
places the entire charge of his business or q
distinct branch of il in the hands of an agent or
subordinate, exercising no discretion or over
sight OF his own that the master IS held liable
for the negligence of such agent or subordinate.
The latter must have general power and COL
troll over the business; not mere authority to
superintend certain class of work or certain
gang OF men in order to. make the master
liable.
There was nothing of the kind here The &C.
cident was caused by the negligence of the
workmen who put up the gas pipe. If they
had been ordered by the master mechanic to
place the pipe where and as it was placed, the
negligence il any. would have been the negli-
gence of the master, for which the defendants
would have been responsible. Such was not
the case. The most that can be urged was that
the master y = directed that gas pipe
should be carried from the paint shop to the
foundry. If in doing so the men employed in
putting it up did so negligently and fellow
workman was injured thereby, it was the neglI-
gence Of men engaged in the same common
employment. Hence it was not the negligence
of the master, and consequently not that OF the
company. Judgment reversed.
A Pittsburg lawyer in extensive practice
and high standing calls attention to the
fact that this decision is contrary TO the
rulings in other States as well as the United
States Supreme Court, and to the heretofore
commonly accepted law that corporation
is liable for the actions of its agents. A
negligent workman, to save himself the
trouble of putting a gas pipe through
the frozen ground, put it overhead.
An equally negligent foreman failed to
notice it, but when Bell was knocked off the
car by it and complained to the foreman
he promised to fix it, but did not, and Bell
was knocked off again next morning, and
got from the lower court verdict Of 81, 600
for his injuries. The Court Acknowledges
A. Al Al
men, but says nothing abont the negligence
of the foreman. If the work had been or
dered by the master mechanic to be put up,
when and where it was put up, the company
would have been liable. But as the master
mechanic did not order it put up m that
place at that time, the accident was attrib-
utable to the negligence of the men engaged
in a common employment, and the railway
was not in any way responsible for the negh-
gence of their agents. The gang boss or
foreman and the gang laborer are made to
occupy the same position, and can kill each
other by negligence. or otherwise as much
as they please without damage to the COM
pany.
Is the logical and legal inference to be
that all that railroad company will have
to do in the future is to have no orders is
sued from anybody above a foreman of q shop,
and then the company is not liable for dam
ages if bones are broken or life destroyed
through negligence of servants?
JUSTICE FIELDS VIEWS.
In opposition to this, hear Justice Field in
Ross versus the Chicago, Milwaukee and
st. Paul Railroad Company. A conductor
had orders to stop but he miscoustrued them
and went ahead, causing a collision, where
in Ross was injured. The case got before
the United States Supreme Court on the
company's claim that the conductor and
brakemen were co-employes and consequent
ly the company could not be held for dam
ages. That illustrious tribunal decided:
A conductor, having the entire control and
management of train, occupies very differ.
ent position from the brakemen, the porters
and other subordinate employees. He is in fact
and should be treated as the personal repre-
sentative of the corporation, for whose negli-
gence it is responsible to subordinate servants.
This view of his relation to the corporation
seems to as reasonable and Just, and 1t will In
sure more care in the selection OF such agents,
and thus give greater security to the servants
engaged under him in an employment requir-
ing the utmost vigilance on their part and
prompt and unheSitating obedience to his or
ders. The rule which applies to such agents Of
one railway corporation must apply to all,
and many corporations operate every day
several trains over hundreds of miles
at great distances apart, each being under the
control and direction of conductor specially
appointed for its management. We know from
the manner in which railroads are operated
that. subject to the general rules and orders Of
the director of the company, the conductor has
entire control and management Of the train to
which he isassigned and all persons
employed on it are subject to his orders In
no proper sense of the term is he fellow serv-
ant with the fireman, the brakemen, the por-
ters and the engineer. As TO them
and the train, he stands in the place Of and rep
resents the corporation.
The United States Supreme Court evil
IDENTIFY does not think it necessary for the
superintendent or manager of railroad to
order train to start before the company
would become liable for rdamages for injuries
arising from the negligence of some of It's
employees. It very clearly decides that a
railroad company is responsible for the ac-
tions of its agents in the line of their duty.
The language of Justice Fields seems to
commend itself to the intelligence of the or
dinary reader.
A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION.
In Fisher versus the Monongahela Con-
Meeting Railway Company, Judge Sterrett
shows remarkable difference of opinion to
the decision in Bell versus New York, Lake
Erie and Western Railroad Company
Fisher was badly injured before daylight BY
. train carrying no lights, running back
ward, through stacks of pig iron. The
plaintiff was nonsuited by the lower court,
but the Supreme Court differs with it and
says: ''The evidence tending to prove that
the injury complained of was caused by de-
fendant's (railrosd's) negligence, was
clearly sufficient to not only carry the case
tc the jury on that question, but also to war
rant them in finding in favor of the plain
tiff"
There is nothing in that decision about
the company not being liable, but con the