Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1910-12-13
Dec GRAND JURY
WILL PROBE FIRE

CONTINUED from First pagc.)
and harm comes to his employees he
Ii responsible TO them and in case OF
death to their relatives for neglect of
duty. Even then he is not criminally
responsible unless 1t be shown that his
dereliction wa SO great as to be reck-
lessly careless.
If lie has recklessiy d~isregarded his
duty to those in his employ. then he Is
criminally responsible. You must bear
in mind that not every neglect makes
a nan criminally responsible.
AT the same time II is difficult to
say lust what an employer should do.
| Sometimes it Is left for reasonable men
to decide. Sometimes the Legislature
of q State lays down arbitrary laws.
which, If the employer follows closely,
absolves him from blame. The Legisla-
ture of the State of New Jersey q
seen At to regulate this matter; has
seer fit to say just what should be
dome to equip factories for the protec-
ton of employees against different
kinds of danger and especially against
danger from fire
The chief justice then read from
the New Jersey laws the provisions re-
! garding Microscopes on factory build
ings, calling the jury's attention to The
| dimensions required, how escapes should
be placed and how many windows
should be covered. Other than calling
| the jury's attention to the law he made
no comment.
Owners Arc Liable.
Continuing the charge he said: THE
duty of making these provisions is put
on he owner of the building. II it
had not been for the fact that the
Legislature hal dealt with this matter
the question of protection would rest
with the employer, and his carefulness
would be at question in this instance.
when the Legislature steps in the
employer has discharged his obligation
to his employees when he complies
with the mandate Of the Legislature,
except that if by the way and n
in which he carries on his business he
has taken away some Of the protection
that is given his employees by the law.
IF ordinarilythe fire-escapes comply
| with the law the employer could say
he had lone his duty in regard to all
that the law required and was not
legally responsible to his employees,
But il windows leading to fire-eseapes
were blocked, nailed down or eeress
from them barred in any manne or in
any way made unavailable the owner
or employer could not ay, You can't
blame me; | complied with the law
In a case where a building Is made
unusually dangerous by acts of this
kind, the employer is not then pro-
tected by the fact hat he has complied
/ with the statute. The duty 70 provide
dre-escapes rests on the owner. The
statute does not require the employer
to establish fre-escapes. but his obli-
CATION 10 his employees requires him
to see that the employees are protect
ed by having the escapes always avail
! able. Neither can he escape liability
because he may claim that he asked
the owner TO provide fire-escapes and
the latter allied to do so. 1t is the
! employers duty to see that they are
provided for his employees.
THE owner of a building complies
with the intent Of the statute. If not the
absolute letter, when he provides fire.
escapes and proper means of exit from
his building. The escapes need not nee
essarlly exactly comply with the re-
uuirements, as far as ratings, stair
treads and minor things so. In event
Of this kind, unless IT was shown that
the narrow tread and low railing, as is
said to exist on the burned building
We're contributing cause 10 the loss oi
life. he would not be responsible. l I'M
derstand that those who used the fire.
escapes on the burned building escaped
in safety.
Ignorant As 10 TOp-EIoor Conditions.
What the situation was on the tol
floor the cour o not know. INT
court does not know whether the hr'
escapes were blocked OF were open. L
open there can be no criminal neeli
gence imputed to the employers oi
those poor girls. They are only re
sponsible If it be shown that reason
able precautions were not taken t
guard against loss of life.
Il cannot point out to you gentlemen
what your action on things that ma!
develop later in this matter. You mus
remember that the mere happening o
this fire does not mean that responsl
bility must be placed.
responsibility Hard to Place.
Even men hardened more or less t.
danger might nave lost their neau
under conditions as they existed on tina
top floor. There was not a man on tina
top floor. The poor girls were left t.
their own Judgment, and If they los
their presence Of mind and threw them
d selves from the window the responsi
billty is hard to place. Possibly If til
girls had remained cool and collects
they might possibly all have escaped.
1T it is proven that any perso
failed in his duty 1t must be show
that gross failure and neglect was re
i sponsible for the disaster. RI you ca
; put your hand on such a man 70
should indlct hin II you cannot sa
any one is criminally responsible n
indictment should issue"
3 Chief Justice Gummere closed hi
charge by calling the attention of tn
iurymen TO the fact that they owed
I to themselves, the county and citizen