The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-12-19
LAW LESSONS:
EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES.


The courts. as we have learned. started
OUT boldly with the rule that employers
must select suitable employees. appliances.
places for working. and also give all
proper instructions. Moreover, this was a
positive thing they must do. If an en-
ployer. however, did not attend TO this
primary duty himself. but asked another
to do II for him. he was. nevertheless.
held just as strictly as though he had
done the act. or omitted TO do Il. him
self He could not shield himself by say
Ing that he had appointed another whom
he supposed was competent TO do this
for him, and who had proved unfatthful.
One of the most frequently quoted utter
ances on this subject is that of the court
or appeals of New York given In Fixes
case The true rule. ! apprehend, said
Mr.. Chief Justice Church. lis to hold the
corporation liable for negligence or want
of proper care in respect to such acts
and duties as II is required to perform
and discharge as master or principal,
without regard to the rank or title OF the
agent instructed with their performance.
As to such acts the agent occupies the
place of the corporation. and the latter
should be deemed present and conse-
Quently liable for the manner in which
UitN are peFlOrtneu. 1T an dkeHt tinpioNS
unit servants his fault is that of the
corporation, because 1t occurred in the
performance of the principals duty, al
though only an agent himself So in
providing machinery or materials, and In
the general arrangement and management
of the business, he Is in the discharge
of the duty pertaining to the principal
Who Is Liable for Changing Time
TabIess
There is an important distinction or
limitation to this rule that ought TO be
mentioned here Ii is the duty of
railroad to make a general time table
With respect to the running OF its trains.
II It does this through the agency OF
another his act is nevertheless the COM
pany's, and If there should be any mis-
take or negligence in doing this 1t would
be that Of the company. But suppose
there should be special order for the
running Of train. az often happens,
what then? This was fixes case, and
he was injured In consequence of IT,. His
counsel contended that the act OF ar
ranging and promulgating a general time
table by a railroad was the duty and
act OF the company. and thas when there
is a variation from the general time
table for a special occasion, as there was
In this case, IL is as much the duty ana
act of the master as ahe making of the
original one. Furthermore. II another
does this for him. II he acts through an
agent, he must be Responsible fer that
agent as though he did this himself.
The court in answering this argument
declared that one doubted the COM
pany's right to vary its time table. II
was at times necessary to do this. and
the necessity was so frequent as 10 fall
within the occurrence a railway servant
Is bound to expect in the course OF his
employment. 1T is not true, says Mr..
Chief Justice Folger. that. on an orca-
sion like this, II is the duty OF the master.
or part OF his contract, to see 70 II, az
with personal right. that notice or
temporary and special interference with
the general time table comes TO the in
telligent apprehension of all those whom
II Is 10 govern in the running of approach
ing trains 1t Is utterly impracticable so
10 do, and brakeman or a foreman on
train knows that II Is, well as any
person connected with the business. He
knows chat trains will often and UNI
expectediy require 10 be stopped anu
started by telegraphic orders from as
tant points. and that such orders must,
from the nature OF the case. be given
through servants skilled In receiving ana
transmitting them. II there Is due care
and diligence In choosing competent per-
sons for that duty, a negligence by them
I'm the performance of II Is risk OF the
employment that the coempioy.e takes
when he enters the service. The court
therefore drew distinction between an
employers duty and responsibility ~
making and proinugatfng general time
table and speciai one; IN the uass ~
the act of the master, and II he appoints
an agent to do the work Tor MIN ne ~
holden for the consequences the sam AZ
though he had done the work birnSe1.
In other words, this IL personal act ~
the employer. and he cannot stHnip "
with a different character by asking some
one else to do the work for MN, " law
Il Is stiil his own.
Bit the changing OF a time table Il
dtf,erent thing. This can be done By an
other and the employer is not held re.
sponsible for his act So he was not held
In the case above mentioned. the lurs-
ton then arises. when can he act through
another IN making changes without sun sun
iectinq HIMSELF Very rarely are rail-
road time tables wholly changed; the
changes are 10 be regarded a. the acts
OF its servants and not rs own. A. ~
events the court has drawn such me
distinction that IL will he difficult. we I'M
agine. 10 determine in MANY cases wheth-
or the change Is TO be regarded ~ inc
uerrona1 act OF the employer for when ne
n resnonsihie or that 81 his agent Tor
which he is not. Possibly, the court might
saw that even n single Renefai shaake 49,
that OF the employer, while aii sp as,'a or
temporary changes were 70 o. feEafaen -
those Of Its agents
Duty of Employees when Rules Exist
employees IN many cases know that reg
ulaflons exist and when they DO u Is
their duty to find out what they are.
This Is especially true OF raiiroads. mus ,ss
reualiripa each conductor before moving
his train to inform himself Of It's cptai.
ton The conductor tAtls4 = " -, .Nf
was Injured by defective brake. which
~ would have discovered had be used
ordinary care In his inspection. lie failed
to recover.
Di.obedfepc~ of Orders.
II an empioye has disobeyed a positive
order or rule he should be discharges
ana not 20 do this IL negligence Thus
company Was notified ;aaf It's engineers
gave the control Of itk engines 70 sferpen
III direct violation ~ its orders. clearly
The company should have discharged
them after receiving such notice.
Minors.
Another class ~ employees must now be
uoiiced-niuorS. The Law seeks o Inn
pose a graxer duty on employers with
r.suect 10 making regulations and IN
forming them ~ dangers. This Il because
OF their inexperience-
we have seen that II Ia the duty u an
employer to make known any defects
concerning appliances, or place ~ work
ing that are not likely % be seen by
workman Of ordinary onaery etion, and v
he fails 20 do this ne Il liable. in other
II. -, t4sss -. FrHHe tII