The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-11-07
THE LIABILITY OF CORPORATIONS
Copyright by Seymour
re

turned over to another and liability there
for be evaded any more than for furnish
Ing suitable appliances. etc, in the first
instance
Opinion OF the Supreme Court of
Maine.
The opposite view has been expressed
by the supreme court of Maine. says
Mr. Justice Danforth: The same care
requisite in hiring servant In the first
instance must still be exercised in contin-
uing him in the SERVICE. otherwise the
employer will become responsible for his
want OF care and skill. The employer will
be equally liable for the acts of an in
competent or careless servant whom he
continues In his employment after
knowledge of such incompetency or care
lessness or when in the exercise of due
care he should have known II, as IL he
had been wanting the same care In hir-
Ing" The court then adds that the same
thing may be said of machinery. A SER
want has no more control of the repairs
than of the machine. no more RESPONSE
hllity for one than for the other. He
uses II and In so doing assumes the risk
whatever 1t may be. This is implied In
his contract of hiring. On the other hand
his employer provides the means of car
course assumes the responsibility that
his work shall be done with due care, and
as the responsibility continues so long as
the means ne are Ysed mus, the
means in the same safe condition as at
first.
Such in effect is the reasoning OF the SUI
preme court of Maine, and very likely
It will accord more perfectly with the
opinion Of our readers than the other
view. As corporation or other master
must must furnish competent servants. appiii,, ,
responsible through whatever agent he
may act, 1t would seem that the duty
ought to be equally great to keep them
In repair and to be holden for the con-
duct of those who act for. him in this
regard
Opinion of the supreme Court OF
Michigan.
In a more recent cast In Michigan the
supreme court remarked: The rule may
now be considered as settled In this state,
as well as In most of the states. not only
that a master Is bound to use reasonable
care IN providing safe tools and appli
ances for the use OF workmen in his en-
ploy, but that this Is a duty which cam
not be delegated to another. so as to re-
lieve him from personal responsibility.
The rule adopted by the federal
courts and in most of the states and
which seems to us most In consonance
with reason and humanity, is that those
employed by the master to provide or to
keep In repair the place or to supply the
machinery and tools for labor, are en-
who are to use the place or appliances.
when provided. and they are not there.
fore as to each other fellow servants"
As they are not. of course the employer
is liable in all cases of negligence in MAX
ing repairs.
1t will be seen. therefore, that the part
ing OF the ways by the courts. the setting
question. whether those who are engaged
In repairs are agents of the employer or
co-servants or fellow servants with the
others. II they are agents then the mas
q q q thnxr f.ll.
then the rules applying to fellow service
apply to him and he escapes 1t may be
added that in the larger number of cases
and states that they are held to he agents
and not fellow servants and the master
Is held liable for what they do.
The case OF Davis VS.. Central Vermont
Railroad Company. Is one of more than
ordinary interest A fireman was killed by
the washing out OF a culvert. II was In
an improper condition and this resulted
from the negligence Of the bridge builder
that the bridge builder. roadmaster and
section bosses were fellow servants Of
the fireman and that their negligence
could not be imputed to the road In
answering this defense the court asserted
that II the master personally attempted
10 do that part Of the work which he
could not delegate to another and was
negligent In doing 1t and injured Its en-
ployes, the company was liable therefor.
The question r. naturally suggested why
should he not also be liable for the negli-
ktutt VI the agent UT StTNant WHOM no
has appointed to discharge the same duty
In his stead although he has exercised
due care to select person competent
and skillful. Is such an agent or servant
while performing the duty cast by the
relation upon the master, fellow work
man with the masters servant In the EN-
ployment In such a sense that the latter
cannot and ought not to recover OF the
master for the injuries sustained through
the negligence of the former? II So the
master who performs his part OF the duty
as ell corporations must. by agents and
servants, secures an immunity from La
bility which the master who personally
enters the service to manage and direct
the performance OF the work does not
enjoy" The court held that the com
pany could not thus shield itself behind
others. the bridge builder and roadmaster
were the agents of the company and not
fellow servants with the fireman. and con-
sequentiy their conduct was that OF the
company's and II was responsible there
for The opinion Is one OF the best Judi
cial utterances on this subject that we
have seen and has been often cited in
later cases.