The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1896-04-24
The Common Law Doctrine o.
Fellow-Servants.
1T SHOULD BE ABOLISHED
An Important Decision in Wake
Superior Court,
TIE WATSON DAMAGE SUIT
Decided Against the Plaintiff on the
Ground That Railroad is Not Re-
sponsible For Negligence
of It's Servants.

One of the finest Speeehes heeFa III
the Wake county court house in
long time was made yesterday by Col.
I. NJ. Argo in the suit Of Watson's ex-
eeutors against the r. and 4. and Q.
C. r.. RS. Col. Argo appeared for the
executor. Capt w. I'll. Day made
STRONG argument for the railroad,
contending that the roads were not
liable. The Judge charged that II the
Jury believed the evidence, the roads
were not liable, and a non-suit was
taken.
Judge McIver told the jury that
Branch and Wells, the conductor and
engineer on the colli6ling train, the
plaintiffs intestate, Watson, and the
local operator at Hamlet were all fell
low servants; that the defendant, the
Railroads were required by law.
4. to exercise due and prop
er care in the selection of its ser
wants and to see that none were en-
ployed but competent men, and 2, II
was the duty of the company TO pro-
vide tools and machinery reasonably
safe and sufficient for the purposes for
which they were intended. If you be-
lieye the evidence" continued the
Judge. ''the defendant 1.-THE railroad)
had performed duties. That being. so,
it is my duty to say to you that +
YOU believe the evidence the plaintiffs
intestate. Watson. was killed by the
negligence of his fellow servants
YOU should respond mo- to the first
issue" The first issue was: .sENas the
plaintiffs intestate, Watson, injured
by the negligence of the defendants
the Or. and A. r. r., and G. G. r. R.)
Of either of them
Thereupon the PLAINTIFF counsel
took a non-suit before the jury
had returned verdict and
appealed. 1T is a very common prac-
tise when the Judge expresses an opin-
ion on the law which is unfayorable
to the plaintiff for him to take non
suit and appeal to the Supreme court
to test the correctness of the Judges
rulings If that court finds error, it
sets aside the non-suit and orders a
new trial. The same thing could have
been effected after a verdict for the
railroad, out the advantage in taking
q nOn-suif consists in the fact that
the plaintiff can bring a new action it
he desires at any time before the ex-
piIation of the year.
Judge McIver, in response to a
question what he thought of the law
as ii now stood, said: II think the
law ought to be modified"
Mr. r. o. Burton said 81 think the
law ought to be modified, but / am
not clear how far that modification
should go as | havn't given much at
tention to the matter"
In view of this decision and
in the light of many other similar cases |
that have arisen ian this and other
States in recent years, we feel justified
in saying, without passing upon the
merits Of the present case, that the
common law rule in regard to negli-
gence OF fellow-servants Is a hardship,
States in recent years, one feels justified
to meet the changed social and indus
trial conditions of the country.
This case is governed by the decision
In Hobbs vs.. Atlantic and North Caro-
lima Railroad, 107 n. c., ], IN which 1t
was held that railroad company is not
liable to injury to its fellow servants
resulting from the negligence of fall
low servant. In this case a fireman was
injured by the negligence Of the engi-
neer, and Justice Clark, in rendering
the opinion Of the court, discusses and
reviews the law of liability for injury
Of fellow servants. He says:
'sThe doctrine that master is no
liable to an employee for the negligence
of a co-ernployee. rests upon the prin-
ciple that a man, as a rule, is no more
liable for the wrongs dome by another
man than he Is for his debts There
are some exceptions to the rule, among
them, for instance, that passengers IN
5ured by the negligence OF servants Of
common carrier can recover damages
of the carrier because Of the breach of
the contract Of safe carriage, and So
where a stranger is injured by the acts
Of a servant within the scope of his
employment. This last is upon the
ground Of public policy, and also as to
the stranger the servant is the agent
Of the master An effort to create a
further exception SO as to make the
common carrier liable TO a servant for
an injury dome him by the negligence
Of a fellow servant first came before the
courts OF England in 1897. in the case
of priesbly vs.. Fowler, 3 Meas. and W.
/, ia which Lord Abinger (5ir James
Scarcity in a very able opinion, points
out the inconvenience and often the
great injustice which would be produe-
E3 II bi3N 1tf~0obCI sNEGG lAGttl fA1AISEJAGs
The principle laid down was that ser
want, upon entering upon his employ
ment, contracted with view to the or
binary risks of such employment; and
further, it was public policy that II
should be 50, since If, for injury to Il
servant by his fellow, he could not hold
their master liable, servants would be
prompted by their own interests to OBJ
serve want OF skill or care on the part
of their fellows and promptly report
the same.
There are notifications, as where
the servant is acting as yice-principal
or alter ego; also where the master fur
nishes machinery which he knows, on,
with care, ought to have known 10 be
defective, or retains an unfit or incom-
petent servant who does the injury or
exposes the servant to unusual risks
not contemplated By the scope of his
employment"
4; isnpon these latter notifications,
of ucoElgetent servants and defective
u - - the counsel for plain
- - appeal bo the Supreme