The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-10-24
LAW LESSONS:
EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES.
BY Alber. S Bellies. IL. D.
| I

In previous article It was shown that
an employe could not recover from his
employer for an injury happening 10 him
through the negligence of a fellow em-
ploye, for the reason that he Is regarded
as having assumed the risk himself. In
other words. an employer is not an in
surer against all accidents that happen
to those who are In his employ. When
man enters into the service OF another
he takes upon himself" so the courts
have said, 'in consideration OF the conn
pensation to be paid him, the ordinary
risks OF the employment including the
negligence OF his fellow laborers." In
another case the court remarked that
the rule. rested upon the sound principle
that each one who enters upon the SER
vice OF another takes on himself all the
ordinary risks OF the employment in
which he engages. and that the negligent
acts OF his fellow workmcn In the general
course OF his employment are within the
ordinary risks" And on another occa-
sion the same court remarked: "If the
risk Is an ordinary one the employer Is
not liable even II the employe did use
ordinary care. In all such cases the risk
of injury is one of the hazards which the
empioye assumes when he engages In the
service TO which II is Incident This has
always been the law
The courts have often said that the en-
ploye receives higher wages than he
would have been paid had his employer
insured him against all accidents. This
statement can neither be proved nor de-
MED. II may be true: IL may not I've.
Perhaps II the employer had been held
liable in all cases instead of giving lower
wages he would have been more care
full In selecting persons for his employ
ment
always held liable they would seek 10
exempt themselves from liability by
special contract with their employees.
Perhaps they would have been required
by their employers to give up all claims
arising from accident. and IL they had.
the question may be asked: Would such
contract be legal? :. IL contrary TO the
policy Of the law for any one 10 relieve
himself from liability arising from his
negligence. and why should not this rule
apply to an employer as well MS 20 a
railroad company This. however. Is not
a uniform rule in all the states, and the
tendency of the courts Is to permit great
err freedom In this direction.
Can an Employer Escape Liability
by Contract.
In Alabama railroad company made
a rule that the compensation paid to its
employees should cover all risks and that
no claim for any compensation for an In
Jury would be paid The court declared
that the company went too far, and had
no right to make such a rule In another
case arising in the same state 4 ralirosd
company had made a similar rule. de-
ciaring that all persons In the sorvice Of
the company In accepting or retaining
employment we're regarded as assuming
the ordinary risks attending the service
Each empioye was expected and required
to look after his own safety and ia eser-
else the utmost caution TO avoid injury
10 his fellows. especially In switching
cars and moving trains The court sand
that raiiroadss like other corporations
and persons. had the right 10 adopt rea-
sonable rules and regulations for govern
ing their employees and for their own pro-
lection. but could not relieve themselves
from liability for their own wrongful
negligence.
The Rutc In virginia.
An interesting case IN which this was
the principal question arose in Virginia
A railroad company made contract
with a Arm to remove a granite hluf end
IL was agreed that the company should
IN no way he held responsible for any in
jury 20 any ~ the members az the flfm
or its employees caused by the removal Of
the quarry During the progress OF the
work enc Of the members 81 the irm Mas
killed by the negligence 50 II 3as
claimed, ~ the company. Ii sought 10
shield Itself behind the contract above
mentioned. But the court would no; per
mit this ITO uphold the stipulation
would be 70 held that Il was competent
for ono party 70 put the other party to
the contract ~ the mercy % lts 0Rn mis-.
conduct. which can never he done where
an enlightened system IL fafisgraAsnea
prevails Public policy gorblas Il, and
contracts against public policy are vaia
Nothing Il better settled ia This court
than that common carrier cannot. IS
contract, exempt himself from rasnsnsi.
biIty fer hts own o. his persantw na9li.
Eence IN the carrying % goods or pas
sen9ers"
The Role In Georgia.
On THE other hand. IN Georgia a siirrey.
cnt rule naa beSn deelsFed An employer
may by HXEsFeNA contract FEtseFe himself
from ~ liability for negligence except
such @s MAY ~ ~ criminal nature
This was decided ~ q case fa which al
empleye made contrast reading thsga.
lie further agrees shat 10 @}ii tatks az.
On himself All Tiske connected with ~
Incident 90 the s.nuioymenf. and AiN Ia
na case bold the company liable f0f snH
iHtsry Or damage. "a ~ fsfsua ~ other
ployed. whether o arises fTau sxgioalffn,
~ TIE HaCfineTF. nr 8Ge1asHt ~ the
Negligence nF misconduct II hirnsNf ~
any other person smpipyea ~ ths com
gs8bv. nr from any ufArf ga 1ee Thia
contract Nas heiA % ~ Eata And esn9a.
aeFufiy deprived lha smuisgs Who vas
oae ~ TIE PARTIES thereto - sa rAuhf Is
recover Tor ans fntpff hMHpan4aE Is h4la
shSe4gh ihs neglerueH ~ fhr farpanF
The Rat~ Sn arkse.ns
Another rass asav d. raaft sresi thar
"a me before fhs Fuurrnie fHMrg ~ Ar.
EansNa The fsgrnr IN fhH fHFtfHfs mr4a
quite similar - those % lhs case tart
N nfg1neA The Cnert safd tAAf a scsss
rfra aarFirT "caaia nfE rTaennfraaf wIfh
Ste rustnmsra~ 60 as So fpgsgf tsffs from
its hNn Negligent meta. bot tkas fht con
tfaat 90 Questfsa VISA az 4 8imrFenf ns-
tafe. as tbs r4lntgoN faTwaen fha aarftpN