Milford chronicle. [volume] (Milford, Del.) 1878-1974, 1908-10-09
FAMOUS NARRANORE CASE
rsft's Decision Of Great Benefit to
Employee as Against Employer
BROAD SYMPATHY FOR LABOR
TibeI About His Being Father OF Tow
eminent by Injunction Manufac-
tured For Political Effect.

70 mon who labor come to know
Mr. Taft and study what he mas uone
e.. their interests they will Wohuel
how there could be any sincerity III
the attempt by the Democratic parry
IN nreiudice labor against MIN.
Take the NarramOre personal n
iurv case in Ohio which when conslG-
ored should forever set at rest all IhIs
manufactured talk for political eHecI
charging Mr.. Taft with beng me
Gather of government by inJunctlon'
Tudge Taft's decision in the Narra-
more case when he was on the Deneh
has been of tremendous benent 10 en-
Move as against employer IN ONO III
personal injury cases. .o
The facts of the Narramore case
arc these. Early in 1899 Narramore
was brakeman on the Big -Four
road one day while at work his 1901
caught in an UNLOCKED frog.
train came along and he was manned
for life The railroad refused to 40
ANYTHING for him and his wife ana
children dependent upon him for sup
mort. Narramore sought the alu VI
the courts. s-- to,,1d
generally held that an employe Know
ing that his employer was IN the napit
of disobeying a law intended lot Tue
employees protection by contlnulns a'
work assumed the risks OF the en-
ployment. The judge before Wnoni
the case was tried promptly dismissed
/ the complaint. -
On appeal the case reached the
/ United States Court OF Appeals anu
came before Judge Taft. Judson Har-
mon argued very masterfully Tor the
railroad, but the Republican canal
| date for President went squareIy
against Ohio court precedents ana OF
courts in many other parts OF the
country in rendering decision IN Ia
vor of Narramore. In his decision
Judge Taft said:
"The intention of the Ohio Legis..
lature was to protect the employees OF
railways from injury from frequent
source of danger by compelling the
railway company to adopt a wei
known safety device. And, although
an employe implicitly valves COM
pliance with the statute and agrees
to assume the risk from unblockeo
frogs and switches by continuing II
the service without complaint, THIS
court will not recognize or enforce
such agreement. The imposition OF
penalty for the violation OF a staut'
does not exclude other means OF en-
forcement, and to permit the compan'
to avail himself of such an Assumption
Of risk by its employees is, in effect, Il
enable it to nullify a penal statute
and is against public policy"
Judge Taft's decision still stand
as the law in Federal courts. Vine
the Common Pleas Court in Clevelan
took an opposite stand in 1903 tn
Ohio Legislature in the spring c
1904 passed a law which made Judg
Taft's decision one of the laws c
Ohio. Who shall estimate the servic
o that Judge Taft performed for a
4 who labor in dangerous employmeI
r by his decision in the Narramore cas-
/ by which he made the law on the sic
q of those who work?
v The decision in the Narramore cas-
: was against gigantic corporate int
n ests and in the face of Ohio Supren
: Court decisions, but Judge Taft four
a way to justice through the mesh
l. of the law skilfully drawn to do inca
: culable service for all time to tho
+ who labor. His record on the benz
n is not one requiring explanation, b
: understanding, to see its convincil
n business and fairness. In all this ia
# for the purpose of creating misguid'
=? prejudice there is not Democrat
y the land who has said that any OF
decisions were wrong.
: In all his career Judge Taft
d deeds has shown the broadcast symp
It thy for all who labor. No man W
Il 90 farther than he in efforts in the
o behalf. but he is not indulging
= cheap talk of the Democratic type
e hoodwinking by mere promises al
, Observation-Disclosures IN catch a vote.