Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1908-12-11
BETTER THAN A SHEEP
Employees Safety Duty Incum-
bent Upon Railroads.
STAFFORD DECIDES CASE
Rules That Wage-Earner Cannot
Barter Away Right to Damages.
RELIEF BENEFIT NOT ENOUGH
Baltimore and Ohio Scored for TAX
ing Advantage of Necessity to
Compel Contract Against
Humanity.
STAFFORD DECIDES CASE
RELIEF BENEFIT NOT ENOUGH

How much. then, is man better than
a Sheep" the rebuke of Christ to the
Pharisees. is cited in rebuke to the
Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company in
an opinion handed down today by Justice
Stafford of the District Supreme Court.
The decision Sustains a demurrer by +.
f. Goldenstein, an employe injured in
the service of the company, to a plea
of the company that he had bartered
away his right to recover damages for
the injury received by accepting relief
benefit
The court rules that the railroad COM
pany cannot avoid its liability to an
employe under the employers liability act
held by the District Court of Appeals to
be in force in the District of Columbia
by pleading that the employe contracted
before entering on employment that he
was to receive only a certain amount as
DANA Ses in the event of injury occurring
to him in the course of employment
Usurer and Borrower.
The court draws an analogy between
such an attempt and the eNaction OF
usurious interest by a lender.
ITO continue the analogy says Justice
Stafford. 1.-The employe, on entering into
the contract to accent benefits in full. II
he accepts them at all. is in the position
of the borrower when agreeing to pay
usury, while the employe. when accept
ing the benefits after injury, is in the
position of the borrower when actually
paying the usury. AS the borrower may
still recover back the usurious payment,
SO may the employe repudate his re-
lease of his real damages
contracts of indemnity insurance and
of relief benefits are an attempt on the
part of employers continues the court.
Ito restrict their common law liability
by requiring their employees to accept and
receive for injuries sum less than that
to which they would otherwise be en-
titled.
1t is if an employer should say to
an employe: 1 will not accept you In my
service unless You will agree beforehand
that if you are injured, instead of being
compensated in full, you shall receive
therefor only some small amount now in
serted in the contract. The suppositlon
is that the employe aSSentS to the con-
tract under the stress of his situation,
by reason of his necessity to secure en-
pioyment.'
Bills of Lading Cited.
The court. quoting the well known prin-
cip!e of law that railroad company can
not secure immunity from damages by
putting a clause in a bill of lading exon
Grating itself when sued for damages to
sheep other cattle in transit, quotes the
biblical rebuke cited above, and pro-
pounds the question:
MAY railroad company. wien it as
sumes the bailment of human lives and
is negligent in taking proper care of them
and no matter how gross its negligence
may he-contract that if it provides a hos
pital kept up chiefly by the very men
whose lives in its charge, kill and
MAIN them with impunty?"
Other points of law raised by the de-
murrer were decided in favor of the rail-
road company.
Attorneys Mcneil & McNeili represent
ed tho injured employe and Attorneys
! Hamilton. Colberk Yerkes q Hamilton
appeared for the railroad.