United labor bulletin., 1909-11-19
Employers Liability :


liability of employers for injury to en-
ployes is such that no abstract state
ment of the rules of law recognized by
courts can adequately convey to the pop
ular mind a just conception of what they
are. The henchmen of privilege have
SO corrupted public sentiment on this
question that our courts have been able
to make the worse appear the better
reason. The slaughter of employees is SO
common that We have come TO take 1t for
granted that II is both right and neces-
sary. Hence. in any discussion. like that
which we are now engaged in. it is nee
essary not only TO state our position so
that It can be easily understood. but to
make II SO plain that II can not be mis-
understood. To that end will give an
other illustrative example of the practi
cal operation of that rule of law which
declares the ordinary hazards of the
business must be assumed by the en-
ploye."
In the spring OF 1901 there was a land
slide on the Florence q Cripple Creek
railway which filled a cut on the line of
that road for n distance of about so feet
and TO the depth OF six or eight feet,
with rock and earth. completely obstruct-
ing the passage of trains. The road
master and section foreman of the rail
road proceeded with a gang of men to
remove the obstruction Both the road
master and section foreman were warned
that there was danger of more rock fall
ing inthe cut. Nevertheless they set
their employees to work. loading the rock
on cars. About O'Clock in the evening
large rock fell from the mountain. kill
ing n number OF workingmen and injur-
ing others. Suit was brought by the
widows OF n number of the men thus
killed. Some OF the cases We're tried in
the state courts OF Colorado. others in
the f-dcrsli courts. These suits were
DRAGGED along for about six years by
those diiatory tactics usually practiced
by corporation attorneys and which are
generously encouraged by the courts. It
Is needless TO say that the widows were
defeated The company knew that the
place was dangerous and made no effort
TO support the clin OF rock OF prevent
the same from falling They did not ad-
wise the workmen OF tho danger or fur
nish any light to enable them TO observe
the condition themselves. but on the con-
trary ordered them to work. in the dark.
The Supreme court of Colorado disposed
OF the whole matter by the following
declaration:
Tho rule that imposes upon an en-
ployer the duty to furnish reasonable
safe place for his employees 20 work in
is not applicable TO the facts in this
case. This duty is imposed and enforced
when the place is permanent in its char
acter and has been prepared or selected
by the master himself or by others upon
whom have devolved the discharge of
the masters obligation in this respect:
but does not apply where the servant is
engaged in making a place safe that is
known to be dangerous. or putting an in
secure place in condition for the resump
Mon OF labor or use. In such case. the
danger is necessarily incident to the
work itself. and depends upon constantly
changing conditions and can only be
guarded against by the care OF the serv-
ants engaged in its performance"
The federal court in the case of
Whips VS.. The Railroad Company dis
posed of the matter I'm the following Ian
guage: I'm many cases OF preparatory
work to at a place for its intended use.
like the excavation along a mountain
side of cut for railroad track, the
work 30 prosecuted will make the place
which was safe before, dangerous to the
servants as their work progresses. from
the liability of stone or earth to slide
down the sides of the cuts SO made by
the same servants who must be held to
have assumed all such risks: and in the
removal OF debris after some catastrophe
or accident which has made the place
unsafe and unfit for the use, to which II
has been devoted, and where the very
object OF the work is to clear away the
wreckage and restore the place to con
dition OF safety and usefulness. II by
such catastrophe a railroad used for the
transportation Of passengers, freight and
malls Is obstrueted, the removal OF the
obstruction 10 a necessity admitting OF
no delay, whether the exigency arises In
the daytime or at night; and servants
employed, who undertake and engage In
such work, necessarily assume the Incl
dental risks"
The removal of the obstruction on the
railroad was an imperative necessity. ad'
hitting of no delay, Therefore" says
the court. servants employed who un-
dertake and engage in such work, neces-
sariiy assume the Incidental risks" That