The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1897-02-18

| Kinney ON Fellow Servants, page -112.
| which is before me and from which
| quote. 1861 ~
Other States favor the Different De
I pa rtn4efst Limitation. u cite these facts
| to show, that ever siRce~it was adopted
| nv the courts, courts of great learning
Effave. endeafored from ~time. to time 10
restrict and modify the application Of the
/ rule.
Until the case of, Priestly vs. Fowler
and the Murray case the doctrine OF
RES SUPERIOR" was
applied without exception, says Mr.. Me
Kinney: This doctrine is tcrystallized 10
| the maxim t'QUT FACIT PER ALUM
| FACET PER Sc" and it has been ,sa q
1 the doctrine Isl founded IN natural Jug
iaicc. and rs as we'll recognized, and ~
| fndssputa ble. as the goemetricaT axione
/ that d straight line is the shortest dig
T tafice between two points, :
E And the courts have Sought time and
time again to co1nteract the Fellow
Servant Rule and return to this true priIR
csple of Respondent Superior" by hold
, ing the. master. liable NOT ONLY for it9
iuries caused to fellow servants by thew
superior fellow servants, and servants
wants in a different department of tie
common service, bnt alses for unsl1ilfI
servants; defective mo 1hmery5 and for
exposure TO hazard cur risks, and dan
gerous service. h Z
See Pierce ON Railroad Law page 3 p
note 4 and cases cited, which puts itsin p
nut .shen. and also Cooley on Tortsf paI
563 citing Mann VS.. 0riental Prig
Works. Rhode Island page "152 ana
Woods Law of Master and Servant seq
tons 425 toh250. .
II Besides all these various limitations
and exceptions to the rule, and tin
disposition of the court ewhere the RUE.
does not apply to resort to the doctrine
of 'sRespondeat Superior THE POLL
+. CY AND JUSTICE OF THE RULE
HAS OFTEN BEEN QUESTIONED.
1t is Said that the rule is based upop.
the contract relations between employer
and employee that the ,employe contr pcts
to assume the ordinary risks of his EN-
ploynent, which includes an injury from
the neglect of fellow servant, whom
he has better opportunity to observe
than the employer. @>tA s@i .@&
But this is manifestly illogical and in
consistent in principle, to sustain the rple,
when, with our present growth and EN-
terprise and civilization, we have Tali-
roads stretching thousands OF miles a.
cross the continent, and when by force
or the, very rules of the corporation
a servant must obey the commands OF
a fellowr servant. though thereby he, be
exposed to death or permanent. injury
upon pain. OF dismissal from the service
of the corporation for snsubordination
and dis6bedience,s ~ r-
The reason of the law, and the argu-
ments therefor in the. former decisions
have ceased. a
And thedmaxim is,s The reason, ceas-
ing, the law ceases" It is said that
public policy is also the basis OF the rule.
That it opens the door FOR suit against
corporations from .consiraeies between
fellow servants to sustain ( injuries,
whereby they may recover damages.
But It seems that the rule has been
abolished in other countries and in many
States of this country with no such re-
suits, but the operation of the repeal
ing acts has been just and fair to both
employer and employee.
In England and numerous States of
this country, the Fellow Servant rule
has been so vigorously attacked that the
law making power has deemed it expe
dent to do away with it altogether.
The rude does not prevail in other coun-
tries. Since the Gladstone Bill, or Eng
lish Employers Liability Act Of 1885,
other States are following the lead of
Georgia, the pioneer in 1856, Of these
changes, and it certainly can be main
tanned. with much reason, that the
grounds of public policy which led to the
adoption of the rule, no longer exist at
this day and in this country.
Mr. W. Irving Taylor in a pamphlet on
Employees Liability 1850, n. Y) says
.'In 1887, when the doctrine was first
promulgated, it was thought advisable
to shield feeble enterprises from expen-
sige Titigations and heavy damages for
accidents to laborers.
Protective tariffs were then thought
necessary.
But corporations and industries have
affirmed Herculean proportions. And
in these days it is generally conceded, a
sound public policy demands further as
strrances and protection to individual
rights against the encroachments of
monopolies and corporate power.
/ The chief policy of a State is toI adj
minister justice irnpartially under hu-
man limitations, and it has long been
questioned whether this can be attained
under the present doctrine of co-service. y
Says Robertson, J.: "Qui facit per
album facit per Sc, is the true principle,
which, when applied to corporate liabili-
ty, we can recognize as consistent with
the enlightened jurisprudence of this
clearer day. e
/ CHAS. r. THOMAS.
/ Newbern, N. c., Feb. is. 1897.
| TuERE. TS- NOTHING SO coon