United labor bulletin., 1909-11-12
Employers Liability

he establishes the condition under which
the work is to be done; he employs the
fellow servants as well as the men in
authority; he is the master of the situa-
ton. The employe has neither choice;
nor opportunity for choice. excepting to
choose between working where he is
placed and enforced idleness. Enforced
idleness means starvation to him and his
family. Surely, no right-minded person
who has given any careful thought to the
relation of employers and employees can
honestly say that the employe voluntar-
lily assumes the risk of the employment
Why should the employer be required to
replace a bursted boiler or a broken belt
or disabled machinery of any kind and
not be required to compensate the en-
ploye who is injured by the same acci-
dent? Why should he be required to
pay for machinery. and be permitted to
get men for nothing?
The harshness and injustice of the law
declaring that employees assume the nat
ural and ordinary risks of the service
would seem to be apparent to the dullest
mind. No one can study the conditions
without arriving at the conclusion that
the law OF assumption of risks has out
lived its usefulness even II it ever had
any virtue. Many legislatures have at
tempted TO abolish this law. The fellow
servant rule which is only another phase
OF the same law has been largely abro-
gated in some states; others have passed
statutes preventing an employe from as
suming the risk OF dangerous appliances
which are expressly forbidden by statute.
Some courts have even become sufficient
ly enlightened to declare that such stat
u,es abolish the defense of contributory
negligence: but judges are merely men
placed in Office: like other men they are
Influenced by their environments. few
Judges and courts have construed the
remedial statutes which have been passed
for the protection OF employees nationally
and according to their evident intention.
/ For instance. n statute OF Indiana makes
certain specific provisions requiring mine
owners TO provide for the safety of their
employees and makes n failure 70 comply
Herewith n public oHense.. and the su.
preme court OF Indiana Justly decided
that an employe injured by n failure to
disregard such statutory requirements
could not be held to have waived his
right to recover. the court holding that
the state has an undoubted right to re.
strain the freedom OF contract in the in
terest of public safety. public health and
public morals.
The Supreme court of Vermont justly
held that n statute making it a public
onense TO have railroad cars equipped
with side-ladders dnto have posts dan
gerously near its tracks was intended for
the protection OF employees against in
jury from such dangers. A few other
American courts have been equally con-
siderate In constituting penal statutes of
this nature. but the majority of Ameri-
can courts. n we may judge by their ut
terances, have had their ears more deli
cately attuned to the melody Of capital
\ istic suggestions than to the agonized
cries OF the wounded and dying. who
have been injured in their masters serv-
/ ice. II is not uncommon for judges to
try TO Justify their decisions by decar-
ing that the servant ought to assume the
risks Of his employment when he has
equal means with the master of knowing
them. Such reasoning is calculated to
mislead those who are looking for an
excuse. but It can have no influence with
the honest and intelligent. The Supreme
court of California, in discussing this
question, used the following sensible Ian
guage: The master had no right to as