The mirror. (Stillwater, Minn.) 1894-1925, 1909-02-25

OF Ut e to his employer. He must give
way to some one else who will probably
follow the same course in the end.
The foregoing is merely prelude to
the main topic, e.,a'e we responsible
for otf els mistakes? In many suits
to recover damages for personal in
juries judges have held that employers
are not liable for accidents to employees
when same was due to carelessness of
a fellow employe. Notwithstanding
that this same employe was hired, ex-
amined and placed there by the injured
ones superiors. If one does not choose
to work with, or does not feel safe
while working with fellow employe,
his only remedy is to resign. There is
absolutely no redIe S or compensation
for him in or thru the courts, as proven
by decisions not only of the lower but
the Supreme courts as well.
Who of you here lave not at some
time or other bee n p ed in positi MS
where your fellow workman was an
entire stranger to you? TT e efore
making it an impossibility for you to
judge of his fitness, either mentally or
physically. But the courts say you,
and not your employer, (who has the
right and power to ascertain his fitness
and ability are to blame, if by his care
lessness you sustain an injury. Are
you and l, who have spent years in fit
ting ourselves for u certain class of
work, to blame if thru an incompetent
or neglige mt superior's order are forced
to work with incompetent or Cal eless
co-workers, and are injured thru ignor-
anoe of such fellow servant? Or is
the incompetent and negligent superior
the one on whom the blame should be
I p aced? 1t stems to the writer that
there is something radically wrong with
law of this kind.
If we may be allowed to make this
paper slightly personal, We Will recite
an incident of which we were an eye
witness. A train of which | was in
charge in the capacity of conductor be-
came disabled by the breaking of a
draw bar, making it necessary to repair
same with CLAIM We ordered the
brake an to make repairs. After back
ing up against rear portion of train
engineer reversed engine, that is, put
it in the forward motion, but did mol
set air brake or open cylinder cocks
Throttle was leaking and in short
J time rough steam had accumulated il
; cylinder to move forward portion o1
train, crushing the brakeman's hand 81
, badly as to necessitate the amputatiol
of the entiie hand. The compan.
7 claimed, and the judge sustained tt EN-
. that the engineer, not the company
3 was the one who was liable. Notwith
;. standing Il at conn any knew of defec
Q of throttle, and the brakeman was tt
Q cars from the engine and could no
know what had been done to protec
9 him, or had been ne elected TO be don
a by one who was fellow servant. Thi
s engineer had been placed in charge G
e engine by our superior officers and wa
8 supposed to be competent, but thru hi
It carelessness the brakeman lost h
hand.
70 1t was proved that the compan
10 knew that this particular engineer VIZ
e not reliable man, as he had in II
% course of two years injured three me
% by carelessness. Nevertheless tn
II company retained him and the cOC
is upheld them in so doing by finding th'
st said brakeman was injured by fellO
I'd servant aid not by company, thereto
t. was not entitled to any recompen
p from company. Again we ask, is the
n not something unjust in a law of tn
1t kind? A. f.. ID.
ut