The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1908-03-08
iC..rrisht. 1908, Charities and The
Commons. New York;

90 - y -
an Fee p.esideHtS T.Irssase nave made
.. III. ,---->- liability ..uHIrcJ for national
-. --.lr -Fil, preliminary study of the
law 90: uaSter ana servant IN Pennsyi-
-. WIS r-..ic by a number OF the stan
~ -.... Pi,tsb,ir-; Survey. which is under
..t,.- a detailed inVcStiSaI lion as to
vr.~- IT,. c-oHUmic burden oil lndus'rlat
-. tents actually fallS-how Tar II Is
i,-r. hy DAMAGES. benefits. relief FUNDS.
~, -s-rl,.s. ere. and row far ii must be
SOL cred by disabled men and the wild
an, and ..l.i.dten Of those killed. This
a.. f..rIr ii.v.,sI isatiDn. in turn. Is part OF
ts-.ar inquiry as to the social and econ
ami. conditions Of the wSSe-eainlns pop
nation now going forward IN the Puts
- district under the National Publica-
ti1r Committee Of Charities and the
Commons
The recent decision of the supreme
court declaring the federal employers
In bili+v act OF 1906 unconstitutional
seems 70 suggest that no matter now
determined. prog. essive our natlonaI
executive may be, and no matter now
willing congress- may :, to Iali IN line,
with him, We must look TO the states
TOR am real advance along this line
President Roosevelt himself, in MS
message Of FEB. l, which may have
bfFu inspired by this decision, makes
!; lear that when an adequate ma
1;onal law has covered the field of IN
.eIs;aJa employment, ''Uhe teld OF IN
tie ate employment will be left 10
the action al the several states. And
h. goes on to express his confidence
,Aa. he states with this clear def
r.-.on Of rAsp0nsibility" before them
will undoubtedly give 20 the perform
aace Of heir duty within their field
Inc consul eratian the Importance OF
the subject demands. The time has
COME then for Us 10 find out, By a
study o. the statutes and the more
recent decisions, just how the der
ent states stand on this question; 10
dste-mine. ST possible, how far an EN-
rI9yer is now liable for injuries TO
his employees in the course. OF their
work. II is in this connection that the
Glowing study OF the employer Ia
'l;ty law Of Pennsylvania is offerSd-
We must begin with a word or two
about the law of negligence IN per-
S1nal injury cases generally. If one
pe~sau INJURIES another unint9ntionailE,
bar through want of due care tRnd due
care : what the average prudent man
VlIid have Used in similar clrcum-
s-auceSl. he is civilly liable TO the IN
.G-ed enc for the amount OF harm, estl-
mated in money, which his want OF
care caused the injured person. This
want Of care T. an be so extreme as to
amount 10 criminal negligence and
then. of course, he is criminally liable
a-soD This seems a natural and faiF
adiUstment of burdens. When one IS
lnidiy careless and thereby hurts an
other. he should make up for 1t IN SO
far as money can. There are two
c'har matters OF law to notice with re-
sd 10 negligence in general. Contrib
urCry negligence on the part Of the in
llred person defeats recovery. Fur
tae.m0re, as a general rule of negli-
gence, and this is important TO bear In
mind, nsaSte" is responsible for the
Negligence Of his servant while en-
gagged in the masters work.
Notifications.
Now, in the application of this gen
eral law to IN employers liability for
injuries 10 his employee. resulting from
the work that he is carrying on, we
snail see that there are some rather
material notifications and changes.
AT these notifications are based, IL
taink, on one mistaken idea-on one
tn7Cry which means almost nothing in
Practice. The law holds that the en-
l@cEar Is in a different relation to his
employees because they have made a
e'n'rac, with him in wifi h certain
dement's arc implied. The law as
f'ncS that the two parties are free
az ~ an e0ual footing in making this
..A'ra"t- IL is the contract of hire
'' servant is not obliged to work for
MASTER. he can take work or leave
IT, - NJ likes; but i he takes the
"..N' ne makes d contract in which