The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-02-08
ELECT. OFFICERS
State Labor Society Will Ad-
jOurn 18th Session Today.
McAllister of Fort Scott Likely
Be New President.
HARMONY PREVAILED
Prof. Higgins Paper on En-
ployer and Employee.
It Was Feature of Convention
and Pleased Delegates.

session this evening with a business
meeting at which new president and
vice president are to be elected. Secre-
tary Johnson holds over. It is expected
that A. S. McAllister of Harrington. the
president, will be elected president.
At the sessions of last night and to-
day there was no particular controversy
among the delegates over any matter.
The most important of the resolutions
adopted was one b. Chas. Danner oe
Fort Scott, asking for an amendment
to the anti-pass law which will permit
the railroad companies to have a physi-
clan at every town of Importance along
the road and to furnish him with trans
portat.on.
One of the f1nestzpapers read during
the sessions, and one which the dele
gates are talking about today, was read
by Prof. VIM. E. Higgins of the law de-
partment of K. u. on the subject, Per
sonal Injury Litigation Between the
Employer and Employee" The paper
in part was as follows:
II have been asked to explain to you
the law covering litigation between the
employer and employe for personal in
juries received by the employe while in
the service of his employer.
1.-THE employer is liable, either be-
cause he has failed to perform some
duty imposed upon him by the common
law, or by the statutes of the state. I
shall not attempt to discuss the statu-
tory law Of this state, except to say
that the fellow servant rule has been
abolished so far as it applies to those
engaged in the operation of railroads;
that laws relating to the operation Of
mines and the regulation of machinery
| are now upon the statute books.
Let us. therefore, consider the com
mon law liability of the employer First
of all, he is liable for his personal negli-
gence. If he injuries any one in his
employ because he has failed to use to-
ward him that care which one ordinarily
prudent individual owes to another I'M
der such circumstances, he is liable just
as any individual is liable. For example:
If he should drop a crow bar upon an
other in his employ, under such circum-
stances as would render him liable to
anyone not il his employ, he must pay
whatever damage he may have caused.
The duty between the employer and
employee in this respect is the same as
that which is owed by him to anyone CT
the public.
Must Have Competent Men.
"Second-Tne employer is also liza
bic for his failure to use due care in
| the selection IF com petent CO. employees,
Tor fellow servants. There are four
instances lin which an employer would
be liable to employee for negligent in
juries received by employee; first,
where the employment was without
second, where the employment is with
notice of the employees unfitness; third,
where the employe is continued in SER
vice without notice of his unf1tness;
fourth, where the employe is so grossly
and VIGOROUSLY unfit that not to know
of his unf1tness is negligence
t'Third-The employer is liable for
his failure to perform certain duties
which the law says he can not relieve
himself of by leaving them to some
TPrfnrr11 for
He must provide a sufficient num-
Der of competent servants to run his
business. Thus, it was held in New
York case that it was negligence upon
| the part of the. railroad company to
start railroad train with only two
| brakeman when three were necessary to
run the train properly. It appears
| that the deceased, a fireman, was kill
| ed because the cars of a freight train
| in advance of the one on which he
was performing his duties became ac-
cidentally detached and ran back and
collided with the train on which the
deceased was employed. But two
brakemen were aboard the forward
| train when there should have been
three, the usual number, and if the
third brakeman had been on the train
he would have been stationed upon
| the runaway cars, and could have con-
| trolled their impetus and prevented
the accident.
1.-THE empl- yer must also provide a
| safe place in which his employees are
to work, which includes structures and
surroundings and safe and reasonably
suitable machinery, tools, implements,
| and appliances with which to work
and the employe, without instituting an
| investigation to ascertain the condition
| of the premises, may assume that his
employer has performed his duty.
| Cites Cases in Point.
"In the Kansas case in which this
rule was laid down, a city was held
liable because it allowed it's electric
| light poles to remain in the ground
until they became decayed and rotten
| at the base, fellow the surface of the
ground so that when the employe
climbed to the top of the pole in ques-
pole fell with him, and crushed his
leg.
1T has also been decided that the
| employer must make BILE inspec-
! ton of all of those place, tools, and
other appliances with which the en-
| ploye is to work. A railroad company
| was held liable for injuries received
because it failed to inspect the handle
of a lever on a hand car, so as to dis
cover that this lever handle was crack
ed, causing it to break off at a little
extra effort made to pass the hand cal
over mud on the track. The plaintiff
who was working the lever handle, was
thrown under the wheels of the car
II appears inst On the udy before Tx
accident the car in question had col
lided with another, and that the col
lision was violent enough to shattel
the handles SO that one of the en-
ployes, not the plaintiff, noticed {
crack in one of the wheels, and tina
the wheel wabbled little as the cal
got to running The plaintiff was no
aware of the collision; nor did he know
of the crack. The court said: 1t viii
not be doubted that the duty of thu
/ nv iS only in the
| stance to make reasonable efforts tt
supply machinery, tools, ETC., safe AMI
sufficient; but also to make like effort
to keep such machinery, ETC., in gooe
| condition. and to this end must MAKE
| all reasonable and necessary inspec
tons and examinations
Il have made no examination int
the constitutiona1ity of the act report
ed by the Massachusetts commission
dealing in a new way with employe