New-York tribune., 1902-02-15
TWO CASES.

In England: The law requires a certain safe
guard TO be maintained in coal mines There
was a coal mine in which that safeguard
not maintained. In consequence employe
was killed. His widow sued the owner. The
owner set up the defence that he was not liable
because the employe knew the safeguard was
not maintained. chose TO work and took his
chances OF being killed The highest court in
England held that no enCOura cement should be
given to the making Of an agreement between
and r that B might break the law passed
for the protection of A Such an agreement,
conniving at a disregard Of statute obligations
would be in violation OF public policy, and
ought not TO be listened to-
In the State OF New-York: The law requires
a certain safeguard to be maintained in fac
tories. There was a factory in which that
safeguard was not maintained. In consequence
an employe was injured She sued the owner
The owner set up the defence that he was not
liable, because the employe knew the safe
guard was not maintained, chose to work and
took her chances of being injured. The Court
of Appeals held that the risk was obvious, and
she could not recover.
To the honest though humble and benight-
ed layman it must appear regrettable that the
highest court In the State of New-York could
not take the view which the highest court in
ELSIduu IOOh uuueT prdCucdlly lQentlcal cir
cumstances.
For the purpose of making a different result
possible in New-York hereafter in case an en-
ployer is sued oil account of death or injury
due to his violation of the law. a bill has been
introduced in the legislature of which this is
the most important part
Sec. 3. An employe by entering upon or con-
tinuing in the service of the employer shall be
presumed to have assented to the necessary
risks of the occupation or employment and no
others. The necessary risks of the occupation
or employment shall, in all cases arising under
this act, be considered as including those risks
and those only, inherent in the nature of the
business which remain after the employer has
exercised due care IN providing for the safety OF
his employees, and has compiled with the laws
affecting or regulating such business or occupa-
ton for the greater safety of such employe
In an action maintained for the recovery of
received after this act takes effect owing tn
any cause for which the employer would other
wise be liable, the fact that the employe con-
tinued in the service of the employer in the
same place and course of employment after the
discovery by such employe, after he had
been informed OF the danger of personal injury
therefrom shall not matter of law be con-
sidered as assent by such empoye to the
existence or continuance of such risk of personal
injury therefrom, or negligence contributing
TO such injury. The question whether the en1-
ploye understood and assumed the risk of such
injury guilty of contributory neeIigence
by his continuance in the same place and course
of employment with knowledge of the risk of
injury shall be one of fact. subject to the usual
powers of the court in a proper case to set aside
a verdict rendered contrary to the evidence An
employe, or his legal representative shall not
be emitted under this act to any right of COM
pensation or remedy against the EMPLOYER in
any case where such employe knew of the de-
feet or negligence which caused the injury and
failed, within reasonable time, to give or
cause to be given information thereof 70 the
employer, or TO some person superior TO himself
In the service of the employer who had intrusted
to him some general superintendent unless n
shall appear on the trial that such defect or
negligence was known to such employer or su-
perior person prior to such injuries to the en-
ploye.
1t will be observed that this proposed enact
ment is exceedingly conservative 1t neither
proclaims nor conceals hostility to the rights