St. Johnsbury Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1867-1919, 1908-02-05
EmplO yerS' Liability Act.

In his recent message to Congress
President Roosevelt says: 1.-THE Supreme
Court has decided the Employers Ii
ability Act to be unconstitutional because
its terms apply to employers engaged
wholly in intra state commerce as well
as to employers engaged in interstate
commerce" The President then pro-
ceeds to urge an immediate re-enactment
of the law upon lines which will harmon
ize with the opinion of the Supreme
Court.
The essential features of this law are
that in action brought against common
carriers for personal injuries to an en-
ploye, the fact that the employee may
have been guilty Of contrlbutory negli-
gence shall not bar recovery when his
negligence was slight and the negligence
of the employer gross but that the dam
ages shall be diminished by the jury in
proportion to the negligence of the EN-
ploye, and that all questions of negligence
and contributory negligence shall be for
the jury 1t also provides that no con-
tract employment shall relieve the en-
ployer from liability resulting from his
negligence.
These provisions change the common
law as administered in most of the states
and the law now is that any negligence,
however slight, on the part of an EN-
ploye defeats his right of recovery, and
where the evidence is all one way on the
question OF negligence or contributory
negligence, the case is disposed of by the
court and does not 90 to the jury at all
1t is also true under the present law that
contracts made with employees, by which
the servant relieves the master from
liability, on account of the masters neg
ligence are held binding by the courts
and often defeat a recovery on the part
of the servant.
These questions respecting negligence,
contributory negligence and validity of
contracts, under our system of law, are
questions that are to be determined by
the laws of the several states The act
of Congress. referred to by President
Roosevelt, was passed in 1906 and pro-
vided that every common carrier en-
gagged in trade or commerce in the Dis
trict OF Columbia, or any territory of the
United States, or between the several
states, OF between any territory and
another or between any territory or
territories and any state or states, or
the District of Columbia, or with foreign
nations, or between the District of Col
umbia and any state or states, under
and according to the provisions of law
above stated, for all damages resulting
from the negligence of any of its officers,
agents or employees, or by reason of any
defect or insufficiency due to the negli-
gence in its cars, engines, appliances,
machinery, tracks, roadbed, ways or
works"
1t will be observed that this provision
of law also does away with the doctrine
of the states that the employer is not
liable to his servant for an accident
caused by the negligence of his co-labor.
In the case referred to by the Presi-
dent a majority of the Supreme Court
decided that it was lawful for Congress
to make all the changes provided for in
the act as above set forth, but they held
the act unconstitutional because its pro-
visions were extended to every COM
mon carrier engaged in trade and com
merce between the several states, ETC., +"
instead OF restricting the operation of
the law to such common carriers when
engaged in the business between the
several states, etc. In other words, the
court decided that it is within the con-
stitutionai LIMITATIONS for Congress to
pass an act doing away with the general
doctrine of fellow servants, upsetting the
law of negligence and affecting the valid
ity ofcontracts between employer and en-
ploye while such carrier was engaged in
interstate commerce, and the law was
only held invalid because carriers who
are engaged in interstate commerce
transact much other business which is
wholly within the several states and so
outside the power of Congress to regu-
late.
The President in his message therefore
urges the re-enactment of this statute
within the limits setforth in the Supreme
Court decision