The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1892-11-30
MASTER AND SERVANT.

-
Strong Grounds Taken by Judge Knowles
on the Matter of Liability.
The instructions of Judge Knowles to the
jury in the case of Thomas Hogan against
the Northern Pacific Railroad company, in
which he instructed them to find a verdict
for the defendant. contains some very in
teresting opinions as to the relation of en-
ployer and employe. Tn judge quotes a
number of opinions bearing on the case.
In most of them the party injured was an
inexperienced employe who was ordered to
do something which was not in his regular
line of employ ent, and the danger of
which he was unacquainted. In such cases
the negligence of the employer was sug-
gested. But the case IN which Judge
Knowles predieates his opinion is one in
which the injured man was an experienced
railroad hand, and where the gist of the
courts decision was that when an employe
of mature years and of ordinary intelli-
gence is directed to do a temporary work
outside of the business he is engaged TO do,
and consents to do such work without OBJ
lection, on account OF want of knowledge.
skill or experience in doing that work,
negligence of the employer annot be pred
icated on that state of facts" In this case
she man injured had been in the employ
of different companies for nearly
twelve years, and he was &C.
quainted with the dangers incident
to the coupling of cars; and he had at
times. when necessity demanded, performed
such work. When ordered to perform that
work, which under the evidence was IN
doubtedly outside of his ordinary employ
ment, he made no objections, but said he
performed that duty under the fear that if
he refused he would be discharged. 1t
doesn't appear that he made any objection
to doing the work or that the roadmaster
ruafa n fhFanfa tn HJGnhnrna him nnlAcS
he did. He and other employees of the COM
pany were engaged In clearing away Il
wreck. There was no brakeman present.
When ordered to bring up the derrick car
he Immediately started to perform that
duty. In order to bring up the derrick car
1t was necessary for him to act as coupler in
connecting the tender with it. and he was
injured in so doing. He stated at the time
that no one was to blame but himself.
The question here presented does not
apply to the railroad company only said
Judge Knowles. IF u merchant who had
suddenly been called Upon to attend to
some unexpected business and ordered his
bookkeeper or one of his clerks to drive a
horse and buggy, i'll which was his wife, tc
his residence, and the horse should run
away and the employee should be injured.
hardly think that he should be entitled tC
damages If the master was without fault,
merely because he was performing a service
for which he WAS not employed" In con
clusion the judge says: ~ have no doubt
that many employees of the railroad com
Iany. III times of emergency. are called
uron to perform many acts which are out
side of their regular employment. The en-
glneers and tremen work in clearing AWAY
wrecks and helping to ut cars upon the
track, and where this work is done without
objection. and a party 80 engaged is in
lured, | do not think that the company
should be liable"