The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-10-17

how the courts In the different states
have defined the rights and liabilities Of
employers and their employees in the nu-
n1sroas cases thar have come before
The question dta not come up again in
England for thirteen years. Then Il arose
IN The case of railroad collision, and =
raiiroad was sued by one or Its servants
Tor an injury caused by the collision of
us trains. The court declared the Ques-
ton TO be whether the railroad company
Was liable for the injury happening 10 one
81 It's own servants BY the collision while
travelling IN one OF Its carriages IN dis
charge OF his duty as it's servant I'm
doubleday II would be liable TO a passen-
ger who had paid his fare. would tho
same rule apply TO ono Of It's own serv-
ants This was the question. and Il was
decided IN the negative. The court after
giving all the reasons for their Judgment.
stated the rule I'm the following words:
"A servant when he engages 30 serve
a master undertakes as between himsif
and his master TO run all ordinary risks
OF the service and this includes the risk
OF ncgllgonce upon the part OF fellow
servant when he Is acting IN the dis
charge OF his duty as servant % him
who Is the e. mmcn master OF both.
The injured empioye therefore did not
recover anything. He had assumed the
risk, so the court said, OF any injury hap
pcning through the negligence OF his Eel.
recover of person who has injured him
or from his servants while acting In
his masters employment. because no has
not assumed or expected that he would
do anything of the kind. But the court
says the rule II otherwise with respect
To employees.
In the years 1871 and isis the courts
IN this country were first required 10 de-
eide this question. The first case arose
In South Carolina. the other In Mas
sachusetts. The latter case Of Farweii
Va. Boston q Worcester Railroad Conn
pany is the leading case In the United
States. One reason for this IN that
Chief Justice shaw who gave tho
opinion OF the court was. and stll is, re-
Rartied as one OF the most eminent ON the
roll of American turists and many OF HE
opinions are more weighty than thnse
eases mentioned had been previously de-
cidcd. be said he would consider tns
question as though II had not been
answered. and thus he reasoned out tne
answer quite INDEPENDENTLY OF those who
had done so before him. Yet he came
10 the same conclusion. The case WAS
that ~ an engineer who had been. tn-
tired through the negligence OF :
switchman In The South Carolina case
the court decided the question the same
way, two Of the Judges. however. nst-
fering from the majority Thus me En-
gifxh rule that an employer IL not re-
spanslble 20 an employee for an injury
caused by fellow employee was adoptcc
as the American rule, and on the Srouno
that the risk WAS assumed when tns EN-
ployruent was undertaken. This RUE Wa
adopted by ono state after another untu
II came 10 be the rule everywherc.
There has been difficulty In trying 20
apply II. as we shall soon learn. The
reader will recall the words put " ithi.
Ics-feilow- servant An employer II NOT
liable to one Of his servants for an IN.
3ury caused by feilow-eervnns busl
who Is a feIi0w-scrpant2 Are the COM
ducior on a train and tho engineer fei-
low-servantss Some courts have satd
they are. others that they are not. In
AN those cases 81 which servants are
not thus related ~ zach other the mnstcv
is liable 10 one hem through sn In
furv caused hY hrr lust a. he woulo
he 10 n stranger ehe Frtestly and Far
well eases and M others simply no 70
this extent And as we shall see before
concluding these arsfcira there are many
eases III which servants have the aArne
employer hui are mol retarded as fei-
iow-servante. When they are not thus
related the tnust ancient OF all rules.
stated az the outset ~ this article. stii
applies and the master h iisbie for In
jartes happening "a them a. IA the cas"
~ persons who are not employed by him.
With this statement ~ the most generM
Of All rules defining the relations OF eu-
ploye and employers the way II prepared
for looking more closely into their legal
relations