Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1895-03-25

THE FELLOW SERN ANTS LAW.
As stated in the GAZETTE on Friday
the case of the Norfolk and Western
railway against Nuckols's administra-
tor, from the Corporation Court of
Buena Vista, was decided in the
Court of Appeals on Friday. Judge
Keith delivered the opinion, which re-
verses the judgment of the lower tri-
bunal. George w. Nuckols, track
hand of the company, While engaged in
placing a rail upon the tracks was
struck by passing engine at Buena
Vista and killed. Without undertak
irg to review all the evidence, the
court held that it was only sufficient to
say that it was proved to its satisfac-
ton that the accident was caused by
the negligence Of the engine man in
charge of the engine, who, at the time,
it seems, was looking out of his cab
window signalling to an engineer in a
passing Chesapeake and Ohio train.
One of the most material points de-
cided was the question of who are fel-
low servants, and the ruling of the
court was that the engineman and the
track hand were fellow servants, and
that the accident being the result of the
formers negligence, and the track
hand having taken such risk when he
engaged mis- services 10 the company,
the railroad could not be held for dam
ages.
The opinion goes on to speak of the
different views held by difierel t
courts as to the liability of the master
to injury TO the servant, especially in
railroad cases, and refers 10 the fact
that even the Supreme Court of Ap-
peals of the United States was not
clear upon this very matter.
Judge Keith laws down in his opin-
ion the following as general rules bear
ing upon this question
/. A person entering the service of
another assumes all risks naturally in
cident to that employment, including
The danger OF injury by the fault or
negligence ola fellow-servant.
2. That The liability does not de-
pend upon the fact that the servant in
jured may be in different department
of the service from the wrong-doer.
The test is, Were the departments so
far separated from each other as to ex-
clude the probability OF contact and
danger from the Performance of the
duties b., employees of the different DE-
partments? If they are !so separated,
then the servant is not to be deemed 10
have contracted with reference to the
negligent performance of the duties of
his fellow-servant in such other depart
ment.
8. That the liability does not de-
pend upon gradations in employment,
unless the superiority of the person
causing the injury was such as to put
him in the category of principal or vice
principal.
4. That it is the duty of the employ
er to furnish suitable aud safe ap.
pliances, machinery, structure, and
roadway.
). That it is the duty of the employ
er to exercise reasonable care, pru
dence, and discretion in ascertaining
the character, habits, and fitness of his
employees for the discharge ofthe duties
to be assigned to them, and that by
proper supervision and superintendent
to Keep himselfinformed as to the man.
ner in which the duties entrusted to
them are performed.
6. That where the injury to the SER
want has been occasioned by the default
of fellow servant, concuring with the
negligence of the master, the latter is
liable, although he only were at fault.
- That track-repairer and engine
man, though in different departments,
are. by the very nature of their employ
ment, brought into frequent contact,
and the risk of negligence by the one
must therefore be considered to have
been in contemplation of the other,
when service under the common master
~ nH