The sun., 1910-11-01

ns1tie,.t reports. sTsl. the Court made thess
/ remarks
/ The prinsiple relied upo,. by the d.
! frndants that q matter is lot Liable to q
| servant for an injury to him occas,,usd
by thu misconduct or negligence of fellow
servant. has been 80 often recognized both
| In this coalntry aud In ENGLAND that II must
I now he considered a. settled Law Two
! reasons are usually assigned for the rule,
I First. thA, the employed must b. supposed
"a have contracted with reference To the
! p.rils OF the business. Including shoss which
I may arise from the charatsr and conduct
of his fellow employees: and second. that
public policy requires that each servant
should he influenced by its operation TO be
no, only careful OF his own doings. but as
watchnI "a possible over tho acts OF his
| associates Farw.ll ~. Boston and W orces-
ter Railroad Company. Met. 20.
The business OF this reasoning has been
questioned by high judicial authority.
Iittic Miami Railroad Company vs. Stevens,
IN Ohio. ii5. However, plausible may
hs the th.ory. 10 IA very doubtful whether
in fact a spinner in 4 factory OF . fireman
on 4 railroad ever made an examination
into the condition OF the machinery. the
mode Of conducting the business, or the
character and habits OF the operatives. for
the purpose Of ascertaininz the extent OF
his risk NJ AN element in calculating the
proper amount of his wages. passenger
in a railroad car may well be presumed TO
have a vivid consciousness OF his risk. but
it has never been Understood that ~ con-
tracts with reference to 10 whom he buys his
ticket s0 ns 60 be his own insurer. Again,
a principal Ia responsible TO an employee
for his own negiixence-why should he not
b" liable for that Of his agent. over whom
the employee has no control. and of whom
he may have NO knowiedsep
"a t~ra ~ r&r>11<
IL is by means certain that the public
interest would not bs best subservsd By
holding the superior. with his higher In
telligence. his surer means OF Information.
and his pow cr of selecting. directing and
disrhArstng subordinates. to the str!ctssf
accountability for their misconduct In
has service whoever may be the sufferer
from IL
shortly after came upon the court .
case arose Nolan vs. railroad. 10 Con-
| necticuf Reports 1871 In which this same
fellow servant rule was relied on. We
| applied 81. as We were bound TO do. but
| with the observation that Il was too firmly
| established a. law by q multitude OF de-
cision- to be now reversed OF seriously
modified by any exercise Of the po wer vested
iD courts
In order to emphas size this intimation
thar tho rule was followed because Il was
settled law a note was appended TO our
.
VIuhion, sI@neo y, ,nv ui,..a's y, ~ 'ae
Nho Nio'S " s"n's us w, w, =, ,',',
i"e Iuio Io' t"'hp,oye' 70 o.' .,"-.Ni...
ny P,"Sos" VI "uAA"Ss ''o'a "NHns ~,
,"""e'." ""ust s'~'o VI s.y 's'S VI.
i"'-"' i'"ta 'ha. va "o~,I a. w" So $50
h@a"oh o' SUCH anA'"s'es ,nto os
rus u W eou,p~' a.NeIy h"e v ~
nIs' @Ppcneo u" ,nS's" >" eS W
roMer. hse anu "es' anu w. $50" vas
| 'pp"e" =" ,ne enp'o'ees y. IsS~u 'o
paeS III hu'e" - .~. ~ a"u "
hai"av 'ompany raen. So. IN ISL
" was prmua,eo ih SCUM esIoaa; MURRAY
vs. hahhoah .oihpanS' ! "cMhs" sas'
ana ia is'- III MhsSa. hos"Ns w .nc .eshs
case o' F"Neh oos.on Ano II 'o'
p"raion' MeVc' " inc Ne'y ao'e op'n'oh
"l 'hiei dustCe sha" w 'ne ihst ca-s mas
largely nomihateu 'he law on 'h's -"oiNs'
curing 'he tase MY years ahu 'o",Ains INC
most p'A"s'o,e statement 'hs' eau We 3'"h
OF ths sronhns -uppo''hs "ho puo"D P""'S
"hich c"mpe's workman entering 'he ser :
wee "t a master to ASSUME ths Nho,s rsS
oil any injury that may oe doh" MN nF 'ne
| master 'hrou&h ,he hhS'ohauc' OF iehow
servant Inc NH"foSS 'anhunke pi Hhis
statement. however appropriate may
have heen AZ thnt ume; mas . tonch OF sfhn
| IRONY vh"h Feeu III the hsht ot rhis''hS
| cohdl''oha IN inc empioymeh, OF ihopt' IN
] England ln tssD tnS Ftlls ~As cnAn afU DN We