The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1906-09-02
What Other People Think
The Railroad Liability Law.
Editor Of The Journal.

To the Editor Of The journal. s.
There Is brief act Of our last con-
gress Of such Importance that it should
haYe greater public notice than it has
received in it's relation to the radi-
cal railroad rate laws enacted by the
same congress, which latter were so fully
recognized by the press
This act was approved June H. 1906.
and may be known as the federal en-
ployers' liability act, or federal negligence
law. Senator La Toilette is reported to
have offered the senate amendments
Which make the law SO extraordinary.
BY 1t, every common carrier engaged in
interstate commerce is made liable to
any of its employees, or in case of his
death, to his personal representative, for
the benefit of his widow and children, his
parents or next of kin dependent upon
him, for all damages which may result
from the negligence Of any of its officers,
agents or employees, or by reason of any
defect or insufficiency due to it's negli-
gence in its cars. engines, appliances,
| machinery, track, roadbed, ways or
works, leaving the amount of recovery
for death unlimited. It further provides
that the fact that the employee may
have been guilty of contributory negH-
gence shall not bar recovery when his
contributory negligence was slight and
that of the employer gross in COMPARE
son, but the damages shall be diminished
by the jury in proportion to the amount
of negligence attributable to such en-
ployee. All questions of negligence and
contributory negligence shall be for the
jury and that no contract Of employ
ment, insurance, relief, benefit or in
demnity for injury or death shall con-
stltute a bar or defense to any action
brought to recover damages for personal
injuries to or death of such employee"
This law Is not the least radical of the
acts OF the last congress, and must SOON
er or later be tested in the supreme
court. In respect to leaving the amount
of damages for death unlimited it fol-
lows the New York constitution Of 1904,
which forbids legislation to limit the
amount of recovery for death by wrong
full act, but it goes further than the leg
islation Of any of the states in making all
damages recovera BILE.
The rule generally prevailing is that if
the injured employee has been guilty Of
negligence directly contributing to his
injury. no matter how negligent the de-
PENDANT may have been, no recovery can
be had, but this act, in expressly recog-
nizing the doctrine of comparative neg
ligepce which has been repudiated by the
courts generally, makes recovery for
! damages simpler and less difficult; and if
upheld may result in taking away from
the trial and appellate courts the power
| to deny the plaintiff a right to have his
case passed upon by the jury upon the
ground either that he himself was guilty
| of negligence or that the defendant was
not guilty of negligence, its provision
that all questions of negligence and con-
tributory negligence must be for the jury
being broad blanket and capable Of
much stretching. If this act of congress
shall be sustained by the supreme court
as to the validity of all of its provisions,
| it is not at all unlikely that most Of the
states Of the union will fall into line
with similar provisions and cut off many
of the statutory defenses heretofore
available by railroads. F. Hanleigh.
Minneapolis, Aug. %.