Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1893-05-04
AnImnortant DECISION.

The question of the liability of a rail-
road corporation to an employe for
damages received while in the service
of the company is one to be settled, not
by the local law in the State wherein
the cause of action arose, but by the
general law upon the subject. was the
substance Of decision by the Supreme
Court of the United States on Monday,
the opinion being read by Justice
Brewer.
The circumstances Of the case briefly
were these: John Baugb, fireman, in
the employ of the Baltimore and Ohio
Railroad Company at Bcllaire, Ohio,
was injured in Il collision between the
engine upon which he was employed
and local train. The engine was a
"helper,n and at the time of the colli
sion was running down hill light.
Baugh claimed that the injury re-
ceived WAS due 70 the negligence of the
engineer, and brought suit against the
company in the county court, whence
il was transferred TO tie United States
Circuit Court for the southern district
of Ohio on petition of the railroad COM
pany. Trial of the case resulted in Il
verdict and Judgment for the plaintiilin
The sum of $1,000.
This result was in accordance with
the rule laid down by the Supreme
Court of the State Of Ohio governing
the determination OF suits OF this char
acter, where negligence of an employe
of the company in authority over tei-
low cmp!oye is alleged.
The railroad company appealed TO
the supreme Court.
Justice Brewer reviewed the princi-
pies applicable to the case at great
length He quotes from Justice Brad
ley ia,
pendent jurisdiction in the administra-
ton of State law coordinate with and
not subordinate to that of the State
courts, and are bound to exercise their
own Judgment to the meaning and ef-
feet of those laws
Justice Brewer said that counsel for
the defendant in error relied principal
" upon the case Of the Chicago, Mil
waukee and st. Paul Railway VS.. Ross,
in which the liability of the railway
company for the acts of the conductor
of train, resulting in injury to an en-
ploye of the company on the train,
was established. But, said Justice
Brewer, the engineer in this case
could not be considered conductor in
the sense in which the term was used
in the Ross case, Notwithstanding that
rule of the Baltimore and Ohio rail
road directed the engineer in the alb
of a conductor, to act as conductor OF
the train or engine.
"The inquiry must also be directed TO the
real powers and duty of the official and not
simply to the name given to the Office. Un
der the circumstances the court were of the
opinion that the engineer was not acting i'll
the capacity of vice principal for the COM
pauy, but rs fcllow-cmploye Of the fireman,
and that the company WAS, therefore, not la
bic for Inc injury sustained by the latter.
The law f m tstcr and servant in this cOnncc-
ton was discussed at length. Tho opinion
concluded that the injury 10 BauSh WAS SIM
ply one Of the risks assumed by him when
entering into their employment. The peril
was known, and yet with this knowledge and
without protest he voluntarily rode on the
engine with the engineer The judgment of
the circuit cour; was reversed and the cause
rcmanded fur a new trial.
Justice Field dissented presenting his
views in lengthy opinion couchcd in most
vigorous language. He said that the verdict
and Judgment in the court below were reach
ed in conformity with the law as settled by
the decision of the Supreme Court of Ohio,
and that law was the law to control. The
relations of employees" he said "subordi-
nate to the directors of the company but
supervising and directing the lahors of others
under them, to their principals and the liza
bility of the principals for the negligence of
their subordinate supervising and directing
agents, are matters OF legislative control, and
are in no sense under the supervision or di-
rection OF the Judge or courts of the United
States. There is no unwrtten, general or
common law of the United States upon the
subject