The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1900-09-30

covery generally in that class of litigation,
in which the amount of damages has been
by our courts left almost entirely to the
Judgment, whim or caprice OF each jury, ana
tended to render the adjustment of claims
which railroad companies desired to settle
at reasonable figures. difficult and some
/ times impossible.
But this short-sighted policy has lone since
been abandoned and ! have every reason to
believe that there is not railroad line or
any importance in this State today that has
not adopted what may be termed liberal
policy in the settlement OF claims against 1t.
That policy cottemplates the most thorough
and painstaking investigation of all claims
with view Of elicitng the real facts, be
they favorable or unfavorable to the road, III
stead OF relying on the ex-parte statements
Of those whose interests sometimes seem to
encourage concealing, rather than dtVulglns'
the truth. 1t contemplates the voluntary
payment of all mertorious claims, giving the
claimant the benefit OF any doubt that may
eAist. it contemplates the payment to the
claimant direct, without the INTERPRETATION
Of lawyer, in cases where the company
liability is clear, of an amount equivalent
to what experience has shown a fair and
impartial jury award as purely compensatory
damages It contemplates that the com
panies, in dealing with the claimants. should
vantage OF either their ignorance or of their
necessities 1t would seem. therefore, that
whatever prejudice may have been engendered
IN the public mind by reason of the railroads
matter of dealing with claims against them
should ere this have been dissipated by the
adoption of these broad and liberal policies
snd the ever-increasing volume OF antl-rall-
road personal injury litigation in our courts
can not reasonably be attributed to public
prejudice so created.
Moreover, the conditions which produced
such prejudices were not peculiar to Texas.
On the contrary, many of the lines of other
Western and Southern States have been built
in advance OF and in the aid of civilization,
domains pending which they were unable to
earn operating expenses, and hence have been
forced to pursue apparently nggardly and
marrow policies in the settlement of claims.
Practically all of them have been operated by
receivers during the past twenty years; yet
according TO my information, in no other
. State Is the personal injury litigation against
railroadc heavy as in Texas, considcred
in connection with the number of miles ope-
J rated and the volume of traffic handled We
| come then to inquire:
of our state responsible for these
conditions:
In connection with this inquiry, permit me.
at the outset TO disclaim any desire to rant
, against ant-railroad legislation. This paper
is purely dagnostical in its scope, and 1t is
not my place to use a surgeons knife. or ad-
2 minister remedies. to remove such causes OF
disease as may be discovered.
That the abrogation of the common law fell
: low servant rule. as applied to railroad COM
ipanies, by the statute of 1891, as amended in
,, 1883, and again amended by the act of 1897
\ has tended to very materially increase the
, personal injury litigation against railroad
: companies no lawyer in active practice, OF
who reads the reports OF appealed cases, will
: question. For several years after the enact
q ment or the statutes OF 1891 and 1898 there
q existed at the bar WIDE diversity of opinion
r concerning the scope and meaning OF these
I acts. Nor were our courts less at sea than
- the bar as is evidenced by the reports Of
4 appealed cases. from which it appears thai
r not only the nisi prius judges. but the severa
: courts of civil appeals, differed widely II
n their construction OF these statutes; uncer
y. and this instance presents no exception L
A the rule. Moreover, the creation of a liza
= bility by the legislature in very large class
n Of cases, whore none before existed. neces
4 sariiy multiplied not only the possible easel
= against the roads, but also the proportional
" part that would probably find their way init
h the courts.
- Railroad managers and their counsel wer
- unwilling TO believe. In the absence Of au
thoritative decisions Of our supreme court
that the legislature intended TO go as far a
Or il seems to have gone in Discriminating
d against railroad companies in the enactmen
"a OF these statutes. say advlsedly. that thes
acts unjustly discriminate against railroa
p The law, as 1t now stands. makes railroa
loompanies absolute insurers as TO trainmen o
the competency and care exercised by thci
co-emDloyes Even as to trainmeD, the laS
- does not and should not make the matte
m an insurer Of the safety of the machinor
furnished, Then why should ne be require
=, Ito insure against the negligence OF a co-em
A. Move who constitutes a necessary part OF tn
re machinery In the conduct OF any great o
ls conslderable undertaking. The law Justly de
81 lcrees that a railroad company shall not b
ut held liable to an engineer injured by rea
a son OF a defect In It's locomotive, provide
e. ordinary care has been used to furnish an
4 lmaintain a reasonably safe machine the
ms why. on principle. should be company be hel
Us liable TO that same engineer for an iniur
rs due 10 an Isolated act of negligence on m
es mart Of the fireman who sits opposite him 4
a. the cab when II has used ordinary care I
ns select a reasonably competent man for suc
ir position and promulgated and sought to en-
iii force proper rules and regulations govern
ing his conductP
as But ii il 10 sought TO justify the felow-ser
IS, want act in rs present form. as applied I
be trainmen with the, to me, specious and uu
as sound argument that on account Of the e1
oe IRENE hazard OF the service, the master shout
a. be forced 10 exercise the highest possibl
Isl degree Of diligence In the selection o. CON
e. pefsnt employees engaged in such service an
IN mat such duty can only be enforced by mas
nd ing him absolutely liable for the servant
he negligence stlll upon what theory Gun N
n statute be justifed when y changes the CON
Oh mon Law feiiow-servant rule as to that lara
he class Of railroad employees not engaged