The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-12-12
LAW LESSONS.
EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES.
(By Albert s. Boiles. LII d.

(By Albert s. Bolles. LII d.
TX.
What Is an employers duty In the way
OF giving instructions to his employees? To
answer this question fully our inquiry
may be divided into three branches. The
first OF these relates to his duty to make
and set forth rules and regulations for
the better working of his machinery. APP
piiances or enterprise. and also for the
greater safety OF his employees. Many of
these rules. as we shall soon learn are
prepared more especially for the benefit
OF youthful and inexperienced persons.
When an Employer Must Make Reg
ulatiOns.
Not every business requires rules to
be made for the guidance of employees But
when the business is large and compiAx,
and the like. in which large numbers are
employed. then the duty OF making such
rules as will give reasonable protection TO
employees clearly exists and should not
be disregaried.
Whether an employer ought to make a
particular rule or set of rules in most
states Is question for the decision OF
the court and not of the jury: in other
words, Ii Is question OF Jaw and not a
question OF fact. So also Is the question
whether a rule Is reasonable or not.
There are strong reasons" says Mr..
Justice Strong. why the reasonabieness
OF railroad regulations should IN The alb
sence OF any positive proof as TO their
erect. be submitted to the court as a
question OF law, rather than to the fury as
one OF fact. Ordinarily jurors are not
aware of all the reasons calling for the
rule. They are apt to listen readily to
any allegations of injuries on railways.
What one jury might deem an inconveni-
ent rule another might approve as judi
cious and proper. There would be no uni
formity. Ordinarily the managers OF rail-
ways are much better qualified than su-
rors TO ascertain and weigh the extgen-
cfes which call for any rule. and. IL It
should be productive OF some inconvent-
ence to compare that with the evil to be
prevented or the good to be produced by
its adoption. II the question should be
deemed one Of law. there would be even
tual uniformity. as any diversity of senti-
ment In the courts below would be finally
harmonized in the court of last resort"
Judicial wanderings.
In view of the wanaarings OF the courts
In trying TO answer the question who are
felow-servants, we are not convinced by
the learned Judge of judicial infallibility.
1t Ia true that the final court In state
may make rule which other courts IN
that state must follow. hat the final court
might go as far astray In doing this as A
ing In the hopeless sea of decisions on the
question of fellow-service cannot be right
nay, some of them must he clearly and
entirely wrong. And indeed on the aues-
ton Immediately before us their differ
ences are so great that the prospect OF
eventual uniformity" hopefully predict
| ed by Justice Strong. seems to ,is darkly
remotcg
| We start out, then. with the simple and
reasonable rule that on employer must
make proper rules and give them due
publicity This rule however at once
holds within itself the following oues-
tions. In what cases are any rules ar
regulations whatever required for the
safety Of employees? for surely they are
| not required In all. Again, In what cases
are the existing rules proper and sulta-
Bile?
When II n Rule necessary
Under the first head may be mentioned
the case of Morgan against the Hudson
River Ore Company. The company had
ten kilns for voasting ore standing In a
row about ten feet apart, They stood
on slight incline. and narrow-ea,lge
railroad track ran along by tho side OF
the kilns, upon which cars loaded with
ore were moved by horsepower one
day the finger OF an employee was caught
In one OF the wheels of a car and crushed.
There were no written or printed rules
i'f toUuustlNG Ins business. though n
was proved that the superintendent had
given some oral Instructions with reSpect
TO doing the work. 1t was contended that
set OF rules ought to have been made
for conducting the business and that IL
this had been done the accident would
not have happened. The court thought
otherwise. There was nothing in tha
nature of the business" said the court
that made II necessary for tho company
10 make and publish rules. The business
had been conducted In the same way for
years before and no accident had ham
pened. and none could reasonably be an.
pretended or anticipated. Even ~ IL
could he shown, after the accident or-
CURED, that II might have been prevent
ed by adopting and enforcing some suit
able rule that would constitute no proper
rules Is not proof 81 negligence. unleE. n
appears from the nature nf the business
IN which the servant is engaged that the
care, should have foreseen md Anticipated
the necessity OF such precautions"
Repairing Cars.
In the case 0f Abel against the Delaware
~ Hudson railroad. a car repairer IN the
railroads employ was under one 81 ia
ing on a si0e-track. Another car was
oareiessly backed against IT by other en-
ployes and caused his death. In action
brought against the company by me
mans wife 10 recover money for the toes
81 her husband IL was shown that other
raitrnad companies had adopted rule
for placing blue flag by day ana a bins
hight hy night IN err under which re-
pairs men were a. work ana prohibiting
the coupling OF moving Of car thus brn.
tested until the signal was removed Nv
The repair men Such a rule had not hes,a
adopted BY the company. The court To-
marked that this was a very proper r1fie
ana " employees were faithful ia carving
Y out Il would give ysasGHab BILE pr6tecs
uan 70 repair men, The court held that
whether such rule ought 10 have been
adopted ~ the company above mentioned
was a question for the Jury 70 deeide.
Berrtgan Va. Erie Railroad.
In Berrigan's case against the Ergs ralf.
road an ernploSs 81 the company was in
1pred while coupling cars and died from
his injury. In the suit against the com
pBny ~ was claimed that II had failed 10
make and publish sufiicienA reEulatlnnn