The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-10-31
LAW LESSONS.
EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES.
III.


Though an empsoye Is his own insurer
against all ordinary risks, there Is q rule
Of duty for employers TO fulfili which can
NOT be lightly discharged This rule IL
tha< an employer must exercise due or
ordinary care In selecting servants; fur
ulsh them with suitable appliances for
their tasks and reasonably safe places
for performing them: enough servants
10 perform in a reasonably safe manner
the specific thing they have to do; and
lastly. proper regulations or instructions
whenever they are needed Every clause
m Iris rule IL full Of meaning. and we
shall begin by inqniring what IL meant
~ the term ordinary care. which an en-
pIeyer must exercise in doing the above
niesstioned duty.
what Il Ordinary Csres
IN defining this term the supreme court
u Vermont has remarked that man IN
my situation Of business Is always bound
to conform to the rules and usages which
tie conduct OF similar business under the
same conditions. This Is ordinary care.
The supreme court OF Ohio has defined the
term IN the following words: such care
us f. most common and usual In the busi-
ness" The supreme court Of Massachu-
setfs has dealt with the term at greater
length What Is ordinary care cannot
10 determined abstractly. II has rela-
ton 10 and must be measured by the work
or thing done and the instrumentaities
used. and their capacity for evil as we'll as
good. What would be ordinary care in
ore case would be gross negligence In an
other. We look to the work, It's dim
cu,tIes. Dangers and responsibilities. and
then say, what would and should
reasonable and prudent man DO IN sucn
AN exigencyr Tho word Ordinary has
popular sense which would greatly relax
the rigor Of the rule. The law means
prudent men use under like circum-
rsancss"
An Emplsyer's Dssy IN Selecting
Employees.
Having shown what the courts mean by
ordinary care. let us next inquire what j.
proper care or diligence IN selecting COM
retcnt employees or servants. Surely an
employer II hardly permitted 10 employ
airy one he pieases without regard TO his
fitness for the task he II to undertake. II
hc were to work alone then indeed q dif-
frrent rule might Be applied. but when
the employee II 10 work with others his
employer must satisfy himself that he will
not endangsr the lives Of his fellow-work-
common employment.
IN . well-reAsoned case against = rail-
road company the supreme court or In
dana remarked that IN employing it, sub
sss .as ass nr su * q aafs se me y
Tho positions they. were 70 MI, and show
ine . duo regard for the consequences
that might follow from employing incon-
ness were required Of any one Il was
olsiriss q that end. In one OF the eariier
~ G c. r. .srS f R.rH p Com
ployer hnew Or In the exercise OF due
care might have known that his employees
were incompstent. .sither at the time Of
s e ass, sn'T + Ss o.s "a r q s. Conn n
pany employed swttohnan and nagman.
who, 20 the other aide contended. was an
hahitnal drunkerd- TO employ such a
was negligence. whether or no he was
= man Of this character was q fact
which tho jury decided against the com
rany.
Hsw n Incompesency Prsveas
p sttenpting to prove that . servant
rylvania has said that incompstsncy cam
not he established by proof Of such acts.
bug must = BY evidence Of general rspu-
wrong way Of locking 81 the mssssr. 30
We will rive Mr.. Chief Justice Iowriss
reasons for his deeisioSl. Character for
care. skili and truth must all alike 10
and not Of special acts Character
Erows out Of special acts. but II IL not
proved by them. Indeed special acts do
are altogether contrary 10 the character
actually established. Resides this
ordinary care implies occasional acts OF
ekfslesSnsssf
This. however. II not the w~v other
COURTS have looked at this question. Said
tho New York court OF appeals In q case
against railroad company: Proof OF
spccinc acts OF negligence Of . servant
or ASCENT on one or more occasions does
not tend to prove negtiKenee on the par
ticular occasion which II the subject Of
inquiry. Specific acts tend to ex-
hibit and bring 70 light the peculiar quail.
liles Of tho man. and Indicate his adap-
lation or want OF adaptation 10 any po-
sition or ntness or untitness for a par
lieular dnty or trust " y BY many or
luIre a general reputation and by which
their characters are known and described
. A principal would Do without
rxruso should he employ for. . respon-
INK the reputation OF being an intcmper-
Ate. INDECENT or careless man. =
stlll more should he he cherEeshls 10
ns h,a knswlsdss q spseinc sess 81, show
With the duties assigned him.
and which might expose his feilow-ser-
wants and others 20 peril and harm
what Are safe Appisaaeess
The second clause az the ruis defining
The duty Of employers requires them %
furnish proper appliances TO their EN-
pioyoA II they fan IA their duty In this
ieeard they uanst answer for the con-
DsqueneA When one 10 injured BY an ap.
Nance the question al oncs arises.
BIO the employer fulnii his duty IN fur
nishlng q proper one. or was he negsi-
remit II must be evident we think.
70 every reader that the question What
IA a proper srp,isnces IA question a
FAcs 10 Be decided whenever u arises.
There have been many cases 81 thta
ksnd ana we might oil much space IN
describing them, An employer 10 not re
sutrca 20 change bis machinery IN order
~ APPLY every rev Improvement. even
lhauxh Il b much safer than the ella
An that 10 can demand II that ne shall
not 10 deceived IN this risk he lncurs
N9r liz an Asupsaywr liable for hidden 6a-
ferss ~ which he has no knowledge. nor
u pa required 60 provide against dangers
Nan am vnn@SessaTy ard Improper use
NJ urpiiancea
Ia tas cass "a Trtas vs. Bradford u. 90
lha court xats that sn the cases agreed
thar chs master was no, bound 70 use
the newest ara best appliances lie dl1
hia duty ~hen he furnished those % or
dtnafy character and reA s0rANls safety.