The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-04-18
AN EMPLOYERS CONTRACT.

The Court OF Appeals of this State. In the
case of Ray Johnston. plalntih. against james
c. Fargo. as president OF the American Ex-
press Company, defendant. has recently
handed down an opinion declaring void ana
against public policy a contract wherein the
express mpan sought to gam an UNFAIR
advantage over an employee.
Johnston. the pia int IN. while in the employ
of the defendant sustained serious personal
injuries by falling with an elevator IN the
barn of the express company While the ele-
vator was being used for carrying down some
vehicles. on the trial. in the Municipal Court
of the city OF Syracuse, he proved his case
before a jury and recovered judgment. Be-
sides the usual defences set UP In negligence
suits the company interposed a contract
which johnson had executed and delivered
to the company upon entering its employ
The contract contained thisp paragraph:
] do further agree, In consideration OF my EN-
ployment by said American Express company
that ! will assume oil risks OF accident or INJURY
which l shall meet with or sustain in the course
Of such eu0loymcnt, whether occasloned Dy inc
htf4ige6ce OF said company or any OF Its members
ofloers. agents or employees. or otherwise. ana
that In case / shall at any time suffer any such
Injury | will at once execute and deliver 10 saia
company a good and sufncient release, under my
hand and seal. OF all claims, demands and causes
OF action arising out OF said injury or connected
herewith or resulting therefrom; and | hereby
bind myself. my heirs, executors and admlnislra'
tors with the payment 10 said express company
on demand Of any sum which II may be compelled
10 pay In consequence of any such claim or In de-
Tending the same. including all counsel fees and
expenses OF litigation connected herewith.
This defence was thrown out In the Nun lei
pal Court; the Judgment was affirmed In the
County Court Of Onondaga county. and az
firmed by q divided court by the. Appellate
Division of the Supreme Court for the Fourth
Department, in an opinion delivered by Mr..
Justice Hiscock. recently designated by Gov.
Higgins TO the Court Of Appeals, That trtbu-
nal OF last resort. reviewing simply the Ques-
ton Of law az TO the validity Of such a con-
tract OF exemption from liability. now unani-
mously aflrms the judgments below. Judge
Gray writes the opinion. he asserts that the
case is a novel one, the precise question In
volved never having been determined In the
Court OF Appeals Of this state. He cites de-
cisIons from the New York reports in which
the point was indirectly involved, all of which
favored the employee. Judge Gray draws
on the decisions OF En- gland and OF other
States in the Union for his preoedents. The
concluding para graphs Of his opinion. In which
he declares such contracts as this to be against
public policy. are as follows;
Contracts are Illegal at common law. as being
against public policy. when they are such az to injuh-
ously affect or subvert the public interests.
Inc tntOIy OF tntlf luVhllultS II III ~ ohO ~
the State that there shall be no relaxation OF the
rule Of law which imposes the duty OF care on the
part OF the employer toward the employed, Tne
State is interested In the conservation OF the lives
and OF the healthful vigor OF Its citizens, and II
employees could contract away their responsi
billy at common law II would tend TO encourage
on their part laSity OF conduct In. II not indiner-
ence 10, the maintenance OF proper and reason
able safeguards TO human life and limb. The rule
OF responsibility at common law Is as Just es 1t Is
.,t., - IT, Nzt.-.. - a. go 10 O. raI Ian
ance must be assumed; for Its policy has in recent
years been evidenced in the progressive enact
ment OF man, laws which regulate the employ
ment Of children and the hours OF work. and I'm
pose strict conditions with reference TO the safety
and healthfulness OF the surroundings OF the EN-
plp~d In the factory or In the shop.
The employer and the employed, in theory. deal
upon equal terms; but. practically, that Is not
always the case. The artisan or workman may be
driven by need. or he may be ignorant or OF i'm
%provident character. 1t Is therefore for the In
tercst OF the community that there should be no
encouragement for any relaxation on the employ
er's part In his ilty % reasonable care for the safety
of his employ e's. That freedom OF contract may
be said to be affected by the denial Of the light 10
make such agreements Is met by the answer that
the restriction Is but a sAlutary one which organ
lied society eXacts Tor the surer protection of It's
members. While II is true that the Individual may
be the one who directly is Interested In the making
OF such a contract. indirectly the State. being con-
tflItI u VIZ 'lldl VI VI v lo INV 10 III
terestcd In the maintenance OF the rule OF liability
and in Its enforcement by the courts.
To acertain extent the internal activities Of organ
lied society are subject 10 the restraining action Of
the State. This Is evidenced by the many laws
upon the statute books In recent years which have
been passed for the purpose OF prohibiting, re-
strtctlng or regulating the conduct of a private bust
ness. either because regarded as hurtful TO the
health or welfare OF the community, or because
deemed from Its nature or magnitude affected with
a public interest. II has been observed that II Is
stul the business OF the State In modern times to
defend individu6ls against one another, and though
the proposition is a broad one. when considered
with reference to penal legislation and all legis-
latlon Intended for the promotion OF the health,
welfare and safety OF the community. II is not with
out truth,
II Is evident from the course OF legislation framed
for the purpose OF afIordlng greater protection 10
the class OF the employed that the people OF this
state have compelled the employer to do many
things which at common law he was not under
obligation TO do. Such legislation may be regarded
as experimenting the common law rule OF the
employers responsibility, and Is illustrative OF the
policy OF the State. Therefore II Is when an agree
ment Is sought TO be EN- forced which suspends the
operation OF the common law rule of liability and
defeats the spirit Of existing laws OF the State.
because tending to destroy the motive OF the en-
ployer to be ~viCllant in the performance OF his
duty TO his employees. that IT Is the duty OF the
cour, to declare 1t to be invalid and to refuse lis
enforcement.
In this opinion Of Judge Gray's Chief Judge
Cullen and Judges Haight, Nann, Chase,
Edward T.. Bartlett and Willard Bartlett
concur.