The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1901-12-21
COLEY GETS VERDICT
IN The SUPREME
COURT
Most important Railroad De
cision in N. &. For
Years.
ASSUMPTION OF RISK
Court Says It's Settled 7 hat the Act Of
'97 Dsprives Railroads Of lh's.
Defence
ASSUMPTION OF RISK
THREE DAMAGE SUITS lUaN ON n
The Court Divided again. Justices Montgomery
ard Cook Dissenting. Capt. CoieY
Will Now Receive hb1ut
$4,000.


$4,000.
The Supreme court yesterday rendered
a decision in the case of Capt. Samuel
s. Coley, of this city, against the South
ern Railway, unfolding its former de-
cision, and Capt. Coley will get $4,000.
with interest.
The opinion is one OF the most import
establishing the broad principle that the
fellow servant act, passed by the Legis-
lature of 1897 Geprives all railroad COM
panies operating in this State of the
defence OF the assumption of risk.
The Southern has been lighting the
Coley case with ali the ingenuity posi-
BILE for years, and yesterday the climax
came with this very important interpre-
tation of the Fellow Servant act which
not only decided the Coley case, but two
other railroad damage suits as well.
Chief Justice Furches, Judge Clark and
Judge Douglas composed the majority OF
the court, and the opinion was written
by Justice Douglas. Justices Cook and
Montgomery, who dissented when the
case was before passed upon, also wrote
dissenting opinions Justice Cook dis
scented at much length, while Judge Mont
gonery contented himself with a few
brief lines.
The Coley case is one of the most fa-
nous legal contests that has figured N
the State courts in years Back in 1893
Mr.. Coley was yard master for the
. Southern Railway in Goldsboro ard he
fell from an engine because detective
piping gave way Suit was instituted in
Wake for 100000 damages and he re-
oeived verdict for 81, 500. Since then
there have been three hearings of the
case in the Supreme court and
it has been reported in published reports
of the courts as decided.
Mr.. Coley has for years been q most
Cstimable citizen of Raleigh He not
only lost an arm in the accident. but
his health has been wrecked. When
the case was last decided he got judg-
ment for $13,5G0, which was the amount
of the accrued interest with the judg-
mcnt of the court. Now he viii receive
something like $4,000
Col. I. M. Argo has ably conducted the
case for Nj. CoIey Recently he has
been assisted by Capt. W. II. Day.
THE COURTS OPINION.
Judge Douglas, who writes the opinion
of the court, says:
We have thus had the advantage Of
three distinct arguments by able and
learned counsel who have also filed eiab-
crate briefs. With such a presentation
of the case, and after careful considera-
tion we feel compelled to adhere to our
former decision. We do so upon an err
tire review of its merits On account Of
its Importance as precedent, which We
think takes it out of the strict operation
of the rule invoked by the plaintiff and
laid down in Weisel VS.. Cobb 122 n c.
81 and other cases cited therein.
The opinion here treats of the origin
of the doctrine of fellow servants and
the modification of it by States Con
tinuing, the opinion says: Cur statute
OF, the contrary is simply 2 consttut-
tional abrogation of the kindred doc
trines of fellow servant and assumption
of risk is applied to Railroad Companies
1t is the act of February 23rd, 1897, err
roneoussly printed as chapter IS Of <he
Private Laws of 1897 and is as follows:
That any servant or employe of any
Railroad Company operating in this
State who shall suffer injury to his per-
son, or the personal representative OF
sny such servant or employee who shall
have suffered death, in the course OF his
services or employment with said com
pany, by the negligence, carelessness or
ncompetency of any other servant, en-
ploye or agent of the company. or by am
defect in the machinery, ways or appli-
ances of the company, shall be entitled
to maintain an action against such COM
pany.
Section 2. That any contract or agree
ment expressed or implied, made by any
employee OF said company to waive tha
benefit of the aforesaid cection, shall be
null and void
The court has held this act to &c
constitutional as far as II applied to fe!-
low servants Kinney VS.. Railroad 122 y.
G. $751; Wright VS.. Railroad 123 n. G.
ESQ; Hancock VS.. Railroad 124 n c. 222.
We see no reason why the remainder OF
this act is not equally constitutional, as
it is necessary to give any practical value
TO this act itself 1t is well settled that
il the doctrine of Fellow Servant and As
sumption OF Risk rest entirely upon an
implied contract, the essential purpose
Of the act could be defeated at the viii
of the employer.
That such statutes are not repugnani
to the constitution of the United States
has been repeatedly decided. The Kali-
sas statute was sustained in Railroad vs.
Mickey l27 United States 205. w
have no hesitation in holding the act o.
February 23rd, 1927 valid In its entirety
and that it deprives all railroad compan-
les operating in this State OF the defense
of assumption of risk, whether RESINS
in contract, express, or implied ant
whether pleaded directly or under tn
doctrine of Fellow Servant.
RnYnnd this Wn cannot go as We ihini