The daily morning journal and courier., 1907-05-24

HTlQClpdl anu the courts OI luS ullLSl
 ent states have been at wide variance in particular cases as to who are vice. principals and who are fellow ser wants. In Connecticut under the de- cisions of our courts it is held that whenever the employer delegates to any officer. servant, agent, or employe the performance of any of the positive duties devolving upon him, then such officer, servant, agent, or employe stands in the place of the employer, and the employer is liable for his acts and his negligence to the same extent as though he himself had performed the acts and was guilty of negligence. Criticisms of the Rule.
 The rule as thus modified by the de- cisions of our courts has more excep- ticns and allows more recoveries than in many jurisdictions where it has been differently interpreted. Neces- sarily rule of law which affects to such a large extent the relations of employers and employees must be of frequent application in the courts and must be an important element in in- i dustrial undertakings. In recent years, however, as industries have developed and the position of employees has changed to a certain extent, the sound ness of the rule has been questioned and many criticisms have been made upon it's universal application. It is said that while the rule was applica-
 ble to the state of society which ex- isted at the time of its adoption, it is not suited to the complexity of present day industries; that the argument that the employe impliedly agrees to as-
 sume the risk and the negligence of his co-employes is not sound; that public policy is not best served by it's continuance in that it does not make the employe more cautious both for himself and the public; and that it is not such an element in industrial un- deftakings that it's abrogation would affect the investment of capital, On the other hand it is claimed that if the rule was sound in principle when adopted, the compleXity of present day
 industrial conditions does not make it
 any less sound; that the operation of the rule makes employees more careful
 in their work; that to abrogate it into
 would make the employer liable for
 every injury resulting to an employe
 through the carelessnes of another em-
 ploye, which very condition would lead
 to collision among employees and
 would result in frauds being practic-
 ed upon the employer; that if it did
 not exist an unreasonable burden
 would be added to the operation of
 industries; and that in reason when an
 employer has used ordinary care to
 select competent servants to operate
 his business he should not be respon-
 sble to one servant for the acts of an
 other servant, over which he has nc
 control By illustration 1t is said that
 it is unreasonable that an employe On
 car at the rear end of a railroad
 train should suffer for the negligence
 of the engineer, whom he does not set
 and against whose -carelessness he has
 no means of protecting himself, And
 on the other hand, by illustration it ii
 said to be unreasonable that a farmer
 should be liable in damages to one oi
 his laborers for injuries resulting iron
 the negligence of another while they
 are working in the fields together, ol ! that a householder should be account
 able to one domestic for injuries re
 sulting from the carelessness of an
 other while they work together in tht Izo Tv when applying the rule one frequent
 ly meets with some severe criticism upon its universal application. In { note appended to the case of Nolar vs. New York, New Haven & Hartfor, Railroad company, 70 Conn. page 194
 the judge (Hamersley) who delivere : the opinion, in discussing the applica ton of this rule said that:
 Possibly cases may arise where tn
 legitimate exercise of the duty of tn court in applying established princi 7 ples to novel conditions, may involv , some limitations of it's apparent reach . But the evil is too deep seated to b remedied by judicial action; it need s radical treatment through wise legis } lation."
 l In the expansion and develop - ment of industries from the sma f undertaking in which the maste I and his servants worked together t ' the large establishments with va = rious and separate departments,
 is hardly to be denied that there aris I some apparently very hard and unjus f cases in the universal application 0 3 this rule of law, however sound an : necessary it may be in other cases, : is, however, such vital element in tn T condition of society that to abrogate $ in 10 to without limiting in any manne g the amounts which an employe nigh = recover from the employer for injurie . occasioned by the negligence of a co f enploye would be radical legislation ( g doubtful advantage. Such legislatio $ has not been enacted in any state ex 9 cept in Colorado.
 s On account of these exceptional case
 in which it has seemed unjust that thi = rule of law should apply, especially 1 Q England and in the states of this coun . try where the rule has been interpret n ed rather differently than in Connect a cut, efforts have been made to enac = legislation relieving from the operatio il of the rule employees in certain employ n ments, mainly railroads, and to modif
 the operation of the rule as to certai specific employees in other lines of em z ployment. It was not proposed to ah
 rogate the rule entirely as a principl
 of general application, but to so mid 2 ! ify # aS tn make ifs oDara tjon m or - just. e Employers Liability Acts.