The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-02-24
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
MIR. KING TALKS OF THE EMPLOY
 FRS LIABILITY BILL.

We print the following, which claims to be correction or nioh 6rleI Is really an elaborate argument in la 'O' VI A'0 ' February 23. 1907. Editor The Advertiser:
 As the author of the substitute to the Employers Liability Bill, which was favorably reported on yesterday by the Judiciary Committee of the House, l desire to correct a statement that ap- peared in this mornings issue of your paper. The bill reported favorably by the committee follows in almost tdenti- cal language the present statute, and there are only one or two slight imma- terial changes in the first five subdivis- ions of the present act.
 One additional subdivision is added, and this is not at all drastic, but only cures what 1 regard a serious defect rel alive to the rule under the common law for the master maintaining a reas- onably safe place for the employe to be engaged in or about the business of the master. Only under subdivision six, is the Fellow Servant Rule enlarged; the Fellow Servant Rule in the five first subdivisions remaining unchanged
 It is a gross perversion of the facts to state that the fellow servant doctrine is abrogated under this statute. The rule of damages is changed only in cases where the injury to the employe results in death. There is no change in the measure of damages where the employe receives personal injury which does not produce death. Under the law in our State, if the employe is unmarried, or has nobody dependent upon him, and saves nothing from his earnings, and Is killed by reason of negligence of the master, no matter how gross or wanton, no damages can be recovered. This Is harsh and inhuman rule and should not be the law. Under the bill as now drawn, the measure of damages Is left to the jury in cases where death results, just as it Is now where the employe re- ceive personal injury which does not result in death.
 As to the question of assumed risk under the present law. if the employe notifies the master of the defect, the master carries the risk of the defect only for a reasonable time. If the mas ter fails or neglects to remedy the de- feet and the employe remains in the service of the employer after the lapse shifts to the employe and is assumed by him until the injury occurs. This rule is changed under the bill now before the House so as to read substantially as follows:
 "The employe carries the risk if he knows of the defect and does not noti fy the master of the defect. If the em- ploye notifies the employer of the de- | feet, then the master assumes the risk after notice is given. LaBatt, on Mas | ter and Servant, says any other rule than that provided in this bill is cruel | and inhuman.
 As to contributory negligence, the same provision is incorporated in this | bill as provided in the Federal Statute, which unanimously passed both houses of Congress and was approved by the President, June II, 1906 This Feeder al statute invokes the doctrine of com parative negligence It was introduce ed by Senator John w. Daniel of Vir- ginia, great constitutional lawyer, and a man of well known conservatism. This bill was voted for by both of our United States Senators. and all the Con- gressmen from this State. This is to show you that our committee Is only 1 following the lead which was recom- mended by the President, and unanl- mousIy agreed to by Congress. The present bill seeks to cure some patent defects under our present liabil- | ity act, which has been in force for more than twenty years. which greatly modifies the Fellow Servant Rule of the common law, and the provisions are wise and humane. The article which appeared in your paper this morning 2 creates an impression which cannot be drawn from the bill. The statement 1 even went so far as to undertake to alarm the farmer, when the truth is, the farmer would never know from the practical workings of this bill, that the statute had been changed.
 Yours truly, Jere c. King.