The Lake County times. [volume] (Hammond, Ind.) 1906-1933, 1906-12-15
AIMED At
CORPORATIONS
Senator elect Bowser Drafts
Act Which He Will Pre-
sent to Legislature.
LAWYERS SPECULATING
Say One Section Is Already Gov
cred and Other Is Contrary to Su-
preme Court Decisions.

Senator Elect A. J. Bowser Of Chest
erton, has prepared a bill which he In
tends to present at the next session
of the Legislature which is in the ma
ture of a railroad and corporation liza
bility act
In his own paper. the Chesterton
Tribune Mr.. Bowser prints the pro-
posed bill and says that a copy of the
paper has been sent to every member
of the legislature. According to Mr.
Bowser's statement the bill is intended
to be presented in behalf "of thousands
of, Iaboring men employed by the rail-
roads and corporations of this state.
The proposed measure has been the
subject of much speculation, probably
more so in legal circles than among the
Iaboring men. There had been advance
notice among lawyers that Mr.. Bow
ser intended to draft such bill while
the laboring man has only been getting
the information through newspapers
yesterday and today.
The author of the bill observes that
in all suits for personal injury the plea
OF the corporation is that the injured
party is guilty of contributory negli-
gence and therefore is barred from re-
covery. Mr.. Bowser thinks that corpo-
ratfons have always been successful in
their law suits on this ground. The
proposed bill provides that hereafter
eontributory negligence shall not bar
an employe from recovery, but that II
shall be taken into account only In the
way of mitigation of damages. All
| questions OF negligence or contributory
negligence shall be for the jury, ac-
cording to the bill.
In the opinion of several Hammond
lawyers the bill is materially not new,
section five being a duplicate of sec
tion four in the liability act of 1898.
on Jan 21, 1902, the supreme court of
Indiana handed down a decision con-
trary to the intention of this section.
1t was in the case of Reed against the
Baltimore & Ohio and Southern Rail
way company. This section deals with
the rights of an employe to recover
damages from railroad or corporation
under the Indiana laws although he
may have been injured in a sister state
These same lawyers think that while
1T may not be discrimination against
railroads and corporations to have such
| a Dill passed II WOulu nc iiloAS iSe1VAis
endorsed by the Iaboring men If 1t
were broader, If 1t included employees
other then only railroads and corpo-
rations.
AS far as recovering damages from
railroads and corporations by employees
where there is admitted negligence or
the employees part, the supreme court
has recently been very specific in the
matter. It was in the L. E. Lawrence
case which had been appealed by At
torney W. J. Winery of this city. The
decision of the supreme court in that
case read:
"G) A railroad switchman who con-
tinues to work on a switching engine
with knowledge that the railroad com
pany is violating a city ordinance re-
curing to carry a brilliant and con-
spicuous light on the rear end Of any
locomotive that is run backward II
the night time does not assume the risl
of injury by reason of such violation
(2) Where a switching crew kicked
a car in upon a spur siding and the ca
ran down so close as to strike one o.
the switchmen standing on the engine
step as it passed and the night was too
dark to see the car without a head
light which the railroad was bound t.
iprovide. but had not furnished. th'
court can not declare as matter Of Law
that the switchman was guilty of con
tributory negligence after he had beer
exonerated by the general verdict"