The Dakota chief. (Gann Valley, Buffalo County, S.D.) 18??-1913, 1894-11-22
AN IMPORTANT RULING.
Employer Liable for Damages to Employe
Injured by Another's Carelessness.

EMPLOYER Liable for Damages to Employe
Injured by Another's Carelessness.
Two trans on the Erie Railroad,
approaching each other from Oppo-
site directions. were both greatly be-
hind time. and were running on
special orders, from station To sta
ton. ser3 by the train dispatcher at
Uornelljyille. About as the day dis
patcher was leaving and the night
dispatcher was coming on. both
trains were waiting at different sta
lions for orders. The night dis
patcher asked the retiring day dis
hatcher 10 give the orders, which was
done.
Alta later hour the night dis
patcher, having forgotten the order
sen by the day dispatcher at his re-
quest, d rected n OF the trains TO
proceed beyond Il station where it
was waiting to meet the other. The
order was obeyed. a collision resulted,
and the fireman was terribly hurt,
losing both legs and suffering other
injuries.
The old doctrine of law is that a
master is not responsible for in jurieS
caused TO IA servant through the neg
ligencc If a fellow servant. This is
still held to be the law where the
SERVANTS are Of cIual rank aud neither
is working under the orders OF the
other. II six men are handli ny Il
bar OF Ia | DAD iron. and by the care
lesSIess OF one il falls and smashes
the foo: ot another, the employer is
not liable.
But in several States it has been
held that-wherc the employees are
no e lual in rank, but one is work.
ing under the ordes OF another-if
the inferior employe is in ured
through the negligence of the SUI
perior. the employer is liable. The
superior employe represents the en-
ployer, and his act is the employers
act, The boss of a gang of hands is
the ''vice principal" Of their common
employer. to use Il technical term in
law.
In the Erie Railroad case the train
dispatcher sent the order. signing
the division superintendent's name
over his own initials, according to
the usage OF the company. lie repre-
sented the company, and was the SUI
pcrlOr or the Il eman who was IN
jurcd. His act was the c0mpany'S
act.
This decis on derives additional in.
terest from the fact that the opinion
was written by Judge hutus w. Peck
ham. who is regarded Justly as one of
the ablest and most enlightened jur-
lists ia the United States. He de.
ciared that the doctrine was not free
from ~dilculty, especially ia many
cases in determining whether one
employe is SUI erior ia authority to
the other. But this he regarded as
mainly a matter Of fact to be settled
by the jury. The principle was cor-
rect
In some ten States Of the Union
the highest courts have held to this
rule of law, and in II case 1t has
been affirmed by the Supreme Court
OF the United States. In the case IF
a claim for damages against a Wis
consin railroad company alocomotive
engineer, having been injured by fol-
lowing the orders or the conductor of
the train-a superior employe-the
FEDERAL supreme Court gave final
Judgment against the railroad COM
pany.
In Illinois and other states there
have been repeated efforts to procure
legislation making employers liable
in all cases for damages in case of in
jury to employees caused by the negli.
gence Of co-employes, eve if of esu al
authority But it has been thought
that this was carrying the principle
too far. or course, if it should he
embodied in a law it would apply to
all employers alike, individuals and
trims. as well as corporations.
IN a MEXICAN MARKET