The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-02-20
RAILROAD MEMS RIGHTS
SUPREME COURT UPHOLDs COEM-
PLOYEs' LIABILITY ACT.
Contracts ExemptinE Company from
Damages Are Also Declared
Null and Void.

The Supreme Court yesterday rendered a
decision UNFOLDING the constitutionalty of
the co-employes' liability law of 1898, and
affirming the awarding of a judgment by
the Cass Circuit Court to William ]. Mont
gomery for 500 damages against the Pitts
burg, Cincinnati, Chicago & st. Louis Rail-
way Company on account of injuries re-
ceived by reason of the negligence of an
engineer of freight train on which Mont
gomery was employed as brakeman. The
accident which Montgomery suffered from
occurred in July, 1893, shortly after the
passage of the law, and the suit for dam
ages has been in the courts ever since 1t
reached the Supreme Court in 1895, and the
records belonging to it are very volumin-
Gus, containing fourteen briefs by the rail-
road attorneys and three by the counsel
for Montgomery. An oral argument was
also had in the case.
Judge McCabe wrote the opinion of the
court, which is a comprehensive document,
covering all the points raised in the case.
Besides overruling all the claims of the
railroad attorneys as to the laws constitu-
tionahty, it also ruled that an employee
could not waive his title for damages for
injuries by signing an agreement before the
injury was incurred. Montgomery had
signed such an agreement by the terms of
which he became participant in the bene-
fits of the railroads relief fund on condi-
ton that he released the company from all
claims for damages. On this point the
court says:
What is 1T that makes the acceptance
OF benefits from the relief fund a compro-
mise and settlement of apnellee's claim? ?
only one answer can be made to this oues-
t tro,l ana that IS that the antecedent con-
- oCl makes IT Such--a contract executed
;neLore the injury occurred. And, that be-
ing so, 1t amounts to nothing more than
att1tesmpt TO secure release of future liza
Dlllly under the act, call it by whatsoever
name we may. Section of the act makes
al contracts by any corporation re-
tGba he Jug OF renewing It from liability under
the act null and void. = There is a
marked distinction in the rule where a con-
sract is charged with violating public poll
icy ana where it contravenes a positive
statutory prohibition, and especially where
the contract provides that the inhibited
contract shall be null and void. We
are therefore of opinion that the contract
set UP In the ~cond paragraph of the an
swer is in contravention of the statute, and
nence, by force thereof, the contract so set
up Is null and void
The railroad company setaup a large num-
per or reasons to prove Ito laws unconsti-
tutlonalty. The common law rule has been
heretofore that a servant has no right to
damages from an employer when injured as
the result of the negligence of a fellow-em-
ploye. The co-employes' liability law re-
much moment to the railroad corporations.
The court held that the complaint in the
case was Sufficient; that the title of the law
lndlcates with reasonable precision and
clearness the subject matter of the law;
that the law does not violate Section % of
Article of the state Constitution regard
ing the passage of local or special laws; that
1t does not violate Section 90 of the same
article, requiring all laws to be of general
and uniform operation throughout the State,
and that it does not violate Section % of
Article l of the Constitution, forbiddng the
1mmunltieS to any citizen or class of citizens
that do not equally belong to all citizens on
the same terms These points were all
raised by the railroad company Upon the
last one raised the court says:
THE inequality complained of Is that cor
poratlons, except municipal, are made liable
for damages caused to one of their servants
by the negligence of co-employe or fellow
servant without any negligence on the part
OF the employer while other employers are
left free from such liability to their en-
ployes."
plaint was not justifable. Continuing, it
says:
''No reason has been suggested why mu-
nicipal corporations should be classed with
railroad corporations. We have many stat
utes applying to railroad corporations that
do not apply to municipal corporations.
There is no necessary similarity between
them. Nor is the business of municipal cor
porations so particularly hazardous to their
employees as to call for such special legisa-
ton as is called for in case of railroad COR
porations to protect their employees
The opinion also sets aside a claim that
the law violates the equality clause of the
Constitution of the United States and then
concludes that the act violates neither the
state or federal Constitution in any respect.