Evening journal., 1906-08-03
Friday, August 3, 1906.
TIME TO ABOLISH 1T.

NAL1THoUT doubt the most atrocious doc
Wv trine that can be found in the whole
realm of law is the one known as the fellow SER
want rule" Originally it was held that master
was liable for the negligent acts of his servants,
and this is still the rule except where the offend
Ing(servant was co-aborer with the one in
5ured. This fellow servant rule is simply a round
about method of limiting the responsibility Of
employers and of taking away what little protec-
tiona employees had. Under present conditions,
servants occupy most unfavorable position The
ruleimeans that servant is without redress where
he has been injured by the fault or neglect of one
who is engaged in the same line of employment.
AS an illustration of the practical working of
This rule, suppose a fireman is ordered to go be-
meath an engine to clean=the fire box, and that
while at work there he has his legs cut off by the
moving of the engine through the fault OF the
conductor or engineer, both of whom we will
assume saw him and told him to go there. Now,
If the fireman should seek compensation for his
injuries he would promptly be told that his in
iures were caused by the negligence of his fellow
servant and that the company was not liable.
The Supreme Court of South Carolina has the
unique distinction of being the first court in this
country to announce such doctrine. That was
about the year IS4I. The time and the place of
the announcement OF such doctrine is entirely
in harmony with the barbarous rule itself Back
in the forties labor did not occupy very exalted
position in South Carolina. Most of the labor
there was performed by slaves, and those who
were not slaves but who found it necessary to
do manual labor were themselves considered as
being on level with serfs And as the slaves
were not treated as human beings but were re-
garded mere things to be moved around and
dealt with at pleasure, having no rights and few
privileges, it naturally followed that all who
worked, and for that reason were classed as
slaves, received scarcely more consideration than
the slaves themselves. 1t was eminently fitting
then that the doctrine that an employer owes
more duty to every other person than he owes to
those who are engaged in his service should have
been first promulgated in slave state, if it had
TO be promulgated at ALL The decision was sim
ply an expression OF the opinions of that age Up
70 that time no such doctrine had ever been laid
down, or even limited at. The remarkable thing
about the growth of this rule is that it should
ever have been adopted in enlightened communi-
ties. But it was, and the next state to adopt it
was Massachusetts, though the court of that
state deserves at least credit for the reluctance
with which it accepted the rule, and for the eau
tion made against too general application of it.
After the Massachusetts decision the doctrine
spread like wildhre all over the country but as
this was one of the first OF the states to lay down
the rule it was likewise one of the first to attempt
to check by legislation the evil effects OF
it AS early as 1887 Massachusetts, realizing the
hardship and injustice of the fellow servant rule
passed an Employers liability act. Acts OF thi.
nature exist in England, and in Alabama, Indiana
New York and other states, the object of which
acts is to place upon the employer due share
of the responsibility Of the lives and limbs o
those in his employ In Colorado the fellow ser
want rule has been totally abolished by statute
and there is persistent demand in other state
for similar legislation. The Barnes act passe'
at the recent session Of the New York Legisla
ture has the same purpose in view though it ap
plies only to railroad corporations. The act pass
ed by the present Congress is also step in til
right direction, and it is TO be hoped that Oh
own state will not be the last one to pass rene
dial legislation Of this kind.