United labor bulletin., 1909-10-22
(By c. A. lrwin.)


In order that we may somewhat appre-
cate the need of legislation for the pro-
lection of employees, let us pause and re-
fleet upon the present state OF our laws
governing the liability of employers. The
law is that master is bound to use rea-
sonable care to prevent accident or in
jury to his employees II he does this he
is not liable. but if he does not, he will
be responsible for the damages resulting
from his NEGLIGENCE or wilful wrong, un-
less the servant assumed the risk or con-
tributed to the injury by his own negli-
gence. In the absence of special statutes
the master is not liable for injuries in
fiicted by a fellow servant, nor by a con-
tractor to whom he has entrusted the
work.
An employe is said to assume the risk
when he knows, or by diligence might
know, thereof In such cases he can not
recover. In other words, employer
may recklessly and wantonly create
dangerous place to do his work and fur
nish the most unsafe implements for his
workmen, but if driven by hunger and
Geld to continue in the service in order
that his dear ones at home may not per
ish, he receives an injury or is killed, the
law says to him that he assumed the
risk. 1t may be true that to quit the job
meant starvation, but the law says: You
voluntarily continued, if you didn't like
the job you ought to have quit 1t also
says to the employer: You may, with
impunity. set death traps for your en-
ployes; you may catch and kill them like
rats in a trap, but if you can show that
they knew, or ought to have known. that
you were likely to do so, you shall be pro-
tected, without reference to the injuries
inflicted and without reference to the
ease with which you might have pre-
vented the slaughter
The law of contributory negligence is
that there can be no recovery for dam
ages caused by the negligence of another
if the injured person by his own negli-
gence contributed proximately to the
damages That is to say, an employer
may by criminal carelessness set in mo-
tion the most dangerous agencies, with
full knowledge that the danger could cas-
ily be removed, but an employe injured
thereby can not recover if in q moment
of carelessness he is injured thereby. 1t
is automatic that all men are sometimes
careless and some men are generally
careless, but the law in its wisdom says
to the workingman; You were careless,
Just as everybody knew in advance you
] would be, and for this you must bear the
! burden 1t says to the master; You
knew that all men are careless most of
the time and some men most of the time.
You knew someone would inevitably be a
victim of your negligence; it is true you
could easily have removed the danger;
it is true that you have slain your fellow
man to save a trifliug expense to your
true that this rule of law permits you to
traffic in human blood but if you can
show that along with your wanton wrong
went just little bit of human fraility in
your victim you shall be eNonerated.'
The fellow servant doctrine furnishes
another loop-hole for the employer to es-
cape his just responsibility. A common
foreman is fellow servant within the
meaning of this rule, for whose negli-
gence the master is not liable. Ii the
workman disobeys an order of his fore
man he is discharged; if he obeys and is
injured by the negligence of the foreman
it is the negligence of fellow servant
for which he can recover nothing.
BY letting a contract to an independ-
ent contractor the master escapes liabil,
ity. Hence it is that in railroad consruc-
tion work and in the erecting of large
buildings and in many other classes OF
employment the laborer who receives an
injury generally finds that he has to look
to the contractor who is irresponsible in
vast number of cases.
In 4 number of states the legislatures
have passed laws for the regulation of
the masters liability for injuries TO
servants. And many special statutes
have been enacted with the view of pro
tecting a particular class of employees
the law requiring the use of automatic
couplers. the law requiring frogs,
switches and guard rails to be blocked
dangerous gearings to be boxed. and
many others of similar nature. The
practical value of such legislation has
been slight.
The courts have generally held that
these laws do not deprive the employer
of any defense that they had before. In
other words, these remedial statutes
have been construed out of existence.
Courts have been largely created by
the business interests which employ
labor, and they have remembered their
creator. You cant blame them. Even a
dog will lick the hand that feeds It.
Why should a public officer be less kind
ly disposed towards his mealticket7
do not mean to reflect upon the integrity