St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1893-05-15


at the adoption of the constitution; and
it IS not pretended that any grant of il
to the general government is found in
that instrument. 1t is, therefore, one
OF the sovereign powers vested in the
states by their constitutions, which re
manned unaltered and unimpalred, anC
in respect to which the state is as indie
pendent of the general government as
that government is Independent of the
| states"
The Ross Case
In discussing the Ross case. Judge
| Field says:
1t only, remains to notice the observa.
tons made upon the decision in the Ross
| case, which seem to me to greatly mar
! row its effect and destroy its usefulness
| as protection to employees in the serv-
| ice of large corporations, under the di-
| rection and control of supervising
agents. That was an action brought by
| locomotive engineer in the employ of
the Chicago. Milwaukee & st. Paul Rail.
| road company to recover damages fol-
| injuries received in collision which
WIS caused by the negligence Of the
| conductor of the train. The company
! claimed exemption from liability on the
| ground that the conductor and engineer
were fellow servants; but the court
| charged the jury that it was clear that
| if the company saw fit to place one of its
| employees under the control and direc-
| ton Of another. then the two were not
! fellow servants engaged i'll the same
common employment, within the mean
| ing of the rule OF law which was the
| subject of consideration, and that by is
general order the company maze the
engineer, in an important sense, sub
ordinate to the conductor. To this
charge exceptions were taken. Inc
correctness of the charge was the
question discussed in the case by coun-
sci. and determined by the court. Its
correctness was necessarily sustained
by the Judgment of affirmance, which
could not have been rendered If the eX-
ceptions to it were well taken. The
majority of the court in their opinion,
while admitting that the charge Is much
like the one in the present case, and
might be we'll said to be
Sufficient Authority
sustaining and affirming the Judgment.
contend that che court did not atte
to approve the instruction generally,
but simply held that it was not erroneous
as applied to the facts of the case, and
in support of this view cite the lam
guage of the court used to show that the
conductor of a railway company, eXer-
cising certain authority, represents the
company, and, therefore, for Injuries
resulting from his negligent acts the
company was responsible, and the
statement that the case required
10 further decision. Clearly, 1t
did not require any 1urCner
decision for it covers the instruction OBJ
jected to, that If the company saw mt to
place one of its employees under the con-
troll and direction of another. then the
two were not fellow servants engaged
in the same employment within the
meaning of the rule of law as to fellow
servants. A conductor Of railway
company, directing the movements OF
its train, and having its general
management, illustrates the gen
eral doctrine asserted and sought
to be maintained throughout the
opinion in the Ross case, that railroad
companies in their operations, extend
ing in some instances hundreds ana
even thousands of miles, and passing
through different states. must necessar-
lily act through experimenting agents;
employees subordinate to the company,
but superior to the employees placed
under their direction aud control.
Doctrine Necessary.
The necessity of this doctrine of sub
ordinate agencies standing for and rep
reSenting the company was we'll Illus
trated in the duties and powers OF
conductor of a train or engine. Ihey
were stated as an illustration OF the
necessity and wisdom of the rule, and
not to weaken or narrow the general
doctrine asserted in the decision OF the
court, and which its opinion, IN almost
every line, attempted to MAINTAIN. Inc
necessity of subordinate agencies exists
whenever q train or engine is removed
from the Immediate presence ana dlrec-
ton of the head officers OF the company.
The opinion of the majority not only
limits and narrows the doctrine OF the
Ross case, but. in effect, denies, even
with the limitations placed by them
upon it, the correctness of its general
doctrine, and asserts that the risk
which an employee of company as
sumes from the service which he under
takes is from the negligence OF one III
immediate control. as we'll as from CO.
worker, and that there is no supern-
tending agency for which corporation
is liable, unless it extends to an entire
department of service.
Remarkable Conclusion.
A conclusion is thus reached that the
company is not responsible in the pres
ent case for injuries received by the
fireman from the negligent acts OF the
conductor of the engine.
There is a marked distinction in the
decisions of different courts upon the
extent of liability OF a corporation
for injuries to its servants from
persons in its employ. One course
of decisions would exempt the cor
poration from all responsibility for the
negligence of its employees, of every
grade, whether exercising supervising
authority and control over other
employees of the company or otherwise:
Another course of decisions would hold
a corporation responsible for all negli-
gent acts of its agents, subordinate to
itself, when exercising authority and
supervision over other employees. The
latter course of decisions seems to me
most in accordance with justice and
humanity to the servants of corpora
ton.
regret that the tendency of the de-
cision of the majority of the court in
this case is in favor of the largest
exemptions of corporations from liza
bility. The principle i'll the Ross case
covers this case, and requires, i'll my
opinion, judgment of affirmance.