The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-06-19
EMPLOYEES LIABILITY
JUDGE BAKER CONSTITUTES PART OF
THE COLiABILITY ACT.
Cannot Be Held to Exempt an EN-
pIoye from the Effects OF His
own Negligence.

Judge Baker yesterday rendered an i'm
portant decision in the case OF Thomas
Dixon against the Western Union Tele-
graph Company. He placed the first con-
struction upon a portion of the co-liabil-
ity act passed by the General Assembly in
1899. The facts alleged in the complaint
are that Dixon was in the employ OF the
Company in November. 1894 He was or
dered TO climb pole belonging to some
other company for the purpose of chang
ing some wires. While coming down, after
having successfully performed his duty,
one Of the iron spikes in the side of the
poIe, used for steps. pulled out. either be-
cause ii was not far enough In or be-
cause of the rotten condition of the wood.
Dixon iell 10 the ground. a distance of
Thirty feet, injuring himself permanently.
He sued for damages. The company filed
a demurrer, which was sustained by Judge
Baker.
In his opinion Judge Baker holds that
there is no liability under the common law.
because it is not shown that the company
had any knowledge of the defect, or that
it had any means of learning Of the de-
feet, while it Is shown in the complaint
that the plaintiff had means of knowing
that the step was defective. having climbed
the pole successfully before the accident
occurred.
The court then takes up the question of
liability under the Indiana statute known
as the co-liability act. This act provides
that all corporations. except municipal,
SHALL be liable for the injury of an en-
ploye. where such injury resulted from
the act or omission of any person, done OF
made in obedience to any rule. regulation
or by law of such corporation, or in obedi-
eEcc to the particular instructions given
by any person delegated with the authority
of the corporation in that behalf" The
opinion holds that this language is am
biguous and thinks ii could not have been
meant by the General Assembly to make
sse BskeF tRnS
the words Acts or omission of any per-
SON. were not intended to include the
plaintiff in an action for damages. but that
ton of the law that would except from
this clause the injured person. The opin-
ion then continues:
1.-The statute is susceptible of a construc-
ton which does no violence to. the lam
guage employed, and which will protect
the just rights of the employee. and, at
spond in damages for injuries resulting
fro m its fault or negligence, or from the
fault or negligence of any person dele
gated with authority to represent 1t. The
true construction requires the words any
person TO be limited SO as not TO include
the person injured. .. > Under this con-
struction the effect is to prevent the cor
poraton from setting up the defense that
the injury of the plaintiff was caused by
the act or omission of a co-employe. when
such co-employe is acting in obedience
to the regulations or bylaws of the cor
poration. or in obedience to the particular
instructions given by any person dele
gatedt with the authority of the corpo-
alton in that behalf In my opinion. this
clause of the statute ought to receive no
broader construction. Thus construed, the
paragraph is insufficient. The injury COM
planned of did not result from the act or
omission of fellow-servant, done or made
in obedience to any rule, regulation or
bylaw Of that corporation. or in obedience
to the particular instruction of the de-
PENDANTS foreman; nor H. ii shown to
have resulted from any fault or want Of
care of either"