The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-12-05
LAW LESSONS:
EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES
BY Albert $. Bodies. Ill. ID.
VIII.

BY Albert s. Bolles, IL d.
VIII.
Not infreduently an employee Is asked TO
undertake a piece OF work that is outside
his regular employment and involving
more risk Sometimes he has been In
jHred while thus employed and has sought
to recover damages from his employer.
law?
Usually He Assumes the Risk.
IT is said in such cases, II he undertakes
the new employment, knowing that IL Is
more risky, even though he is TO receive
no larger compensation. he assumes tho
FISK. This question has been fully con-
sidered by the supreme court of Massa-
chusetts IN case agafnt the Boston q
Albany railroad. The person injured was
aiding as fireman on an engine. and knew
that ne was not required to do so by his
origiai contract with the company. He
was asked to serve in this way and he
complied rather than run the risk Of los
ing his position as a laborer In so doing
the court said he assumed the necessary
risk. He did this, continued the court
rather than lose the position which he
held. and which he desired TO retain"
and by so doing added this duty to the
one he first agreed TO perform. Morally
to coerce a servant to an employment the
risk Of which he does not wish 10 encoun-
ter. by threatening otherwise TO deprive
him OF an employment he can readily and
safely perform. may sometimes be harsh
but when one has assumed an employ
ment. If an additional and more danger
Gus duty Is added to his original labor
he may accept or refuse It," III he should
refuse, and as a consequence be discharg-
ed, he can sue his employer for breaking
his original contract with him. This is
the remedy that the law provides for him
But as his term OF service usually Is very
short and his employer can discharge him
in most cases when It is for his interest to
do so. this remedy II not worth much
He has in truth In many cases no alter
native but TO perform the new service
The Rule In wisconsin.
In Wisconsin the rule Is somewhat quail
ned The supreme court OF that state
holds that when an employe OF mature
years and of ordinary intelligence and ex-
perience is directed to do temporary work
and consents to do 1t without objection.
he assumes the risk. This rule was APP
piled In the following case: The foreman
OF gang OF men who were building
bridges for a railroad directed them to
take an engine and do some switching.
They readily obeyed. but while one OF
them was trying to couple car he was
injured. He tried TO recover for the in
In a case that happened In a sawmili In
Michigan. the injured employee claimed
that he had not been employed to do the
work in which he was engaged nj the
time he was injured. that he had no expe-
rience In doing II and lacked the skill and
strength required to do II; that he did
not know of the danger and was not
warned against IT, Furthermore. he claim
ed that his employer did know of the
danger and was negligent In not telling
him. The evidence. however. did not sus-
tain his claim. He had been employed
around the mill several years and had
been put on all kinds OF machinery 10
run" The machine whereby he was In
tured was a good one and In good order
and was not dangerous 20 Use. Indeed
the evidence showed that II was one OF
the simplest OF the employers machines
and was not infreauentiy operated with
out difficulty by unskilied workmen "and
sometimes by beginners" He. therefore
failed for several reasons TO prove his
case. one Of the most important OF which
was that his risk was not increased from
running the machine by which he was
injured.
when Employers Have Been Held
Liable.
There are cases, though. In which
employer has been held liable for putting
his employees to other tasks than those
first acknowledgements In which the dam
ger was greater and not known or under
stood by the employe. One Of these cases
was I.alors against the Chicago ~ Bur
iington railroad. which was tried IN flli-
nois. The injured empioye was employed
around the freight house ~ the company
ms common laborer 20 load and unload
freight. and for no other purpose While
thus engaged he was ordered by fore
man 81 the company 10 couple cars. lie
was totally ignorant az this business. and
the foreman knew II. Having been killed
while thus engaged through the nsgii-
rence 81 the engineer 81 the train with
which he was acting. his widow sued the
company. The court remarked that IN
agreeing 20 work for the company he
might he presumed 20 have known the
perlis usually and necessarily incident to
the services. But he engaged TO perform
work only ordinarily hazardous on the
other hard. he was compelled 20 do other
work that Wac extra hama fdoas. by which
~ lHat Ma Iffe The @npeTfnteadent knew
~ IN time he set him ~ coupling cars
that he was unskilied ar the work. and
the cpropauF IN law waa present ~ and
iireet command 81 ~ company the de-
ceased Was exposed . ihls refN. ana one
ouf ~ the lire ~ inc business he had
contracted 70 perform re wa y, ssaea p,
the lacofnntix. while thus eNp0es1 The
law would ~ lameutahly deficient Old y
Furnish 10 remedy 10 StHN q case
Tn. Wrong cansist. ia Not Telling
Him of va. .restsr Danger.
the company aaa heli Sable 81 thtH case
hseaase Il set one ~ re servants A.
4,rsrsnf smpioy rnent. without agreement
thsf aas nia5e haB9r1pns. without telling
hirn and ~ whicf 20 has - EwaRft Nnvw'
ledge TAa reEeure az It's wrong was nos
y, rnnrh IN rhauxlng his employment 40
I'll in.rreax5nE ths rick without iHfefMfnE
MIN II he haf known haW 20 cegple cars
49, a.eii - hr knew how g. fatGdlH ffeiget
: aignwanf cues Aan pn8ia have heea Aff-
saafs4 ThnH Judge Jenkins fn federal
sskHa remarks. The master may not iHs-
gHite .srpasa h&s servant BE- greater RISKS
5han thsee ps,rsasninE ta ihe fATtteaAar
..-..t-a III aNlea ho has enkAEed ard
against Rlacn the servant. Through Want
~ sN.H aY hy reason - feaaeF a## gg
ahystcsl inability onl4 apt tsessrs.a u