The Tacoma times. [volume] (Tacoma, Wash.) 1903-1949, 1910-10-24
SUPREMECOURT
UNMASKED

Continued From Page One.)
Life Is cheap, but safety appli-
anceS cost money and curtail divi-
dends.
Case of Judson Noble.
Take a specific example. Some
twelve years ago JudsOn Noble was
killed in Seattle by the fault or
negligence of another. His apr
ents brought an action to recover
damages for his death, and in the
trial court were given a jury ver-
dict. On appeal to the supreme
court this Judgment was reversed
in a decision written by Judge NJ.
j. Gordon.
The territorial legislature of
1,t73 had enacted a law which pro-
vided that i'm case of the death of
man killed i'm duel, the widow
or children might maintain an ac-
ton to recover damages for his
death. Two years later the leg
islature of 1875 enacted another
law which provided that i'm case
of the death of person by the
fault or negligence of another, his
''heirs or personal representatives"
might maintain such an action. In
the Noble decision Judge Gordon
and the supreme court did IA little
leglslating, in which they mutilat-
ed the second law almost beyond
recognition. They wrote the pro-
visions of the first law passed by
one legislature into the second law
passed by another legislature,
holding that when the legislature
of 1878 said "PERSON" 1t did not
mean "person" but meant "MAR-
RIED MAN. and that when it
said HEIRS AND PERSONAL
REPRESENTATIVES," it did not
mean what it said, but meant
"WIDOW OR CHILDREN" In
short, it mutilated the law passed
by the Legislature and intended to
be general i'm its application so as
to exclude parents from recover
ing for the killing of his wife, or
a sister for the killing of her
brother. Under this decision EN-
ploying corporations engaged in
enterprises in which accidental
deaths are frequent need only to
employ UNMARRIED MEN, and
to KILL instead Of MANNING
them, in order to escape civil liza
bility for their negligence.
Judge Dunbar Dissented.
| In order to stretch a plain stat
lutte into such unrecognizoable
shape, Judge Gordon wrote an
/ |opinion of several pages, while
Judge Dunbar, the grand old
man" of the court, disposed of
1.-THE question in a dissenting opin-
lion of three lines, in which he
said:
/ II dissent. / think the right Ito
|recover) is conferred by the plain
Language of the statute, which is
mot. capable of construction"
t There is a rule of law that a
Eperson is presumed to intend
hhat which is the natural conse-
Eauence of his own acts. The nat
Iaral consequence of the act of a
lcorporation which could safeguard
1.-THE lives of its employees and re-
fuses to do so is to take the lives
1 OF some of those employees, in
'lshort, murder. The consequence
of the Gordon decision in the No
BILE case was to nullify the only
legal penalty for most of these pre-
lventable accidental deaths, these
! careless murders.
lI&% Judge Stiles Opinion.
/ seThe decision in the Noble case
was a great surprise to the Qegal)
profession, especially because the
reasoning of 1t was based wholly
upon decisions under a Kentucky
statute, repealed at the time, and
which bore no similarity to our
own law" l have quoted the ex-
act language of Judge T. L. Stiles,
| of Tacoma, a former member of
the supreme court.
Frank T. Post, of Spokane, one
of the ablest corporation lawyers
lin the state, and one of the first
friends and warmest champions of
the supreme court, said in his
brief in the case of Nesbitt VS..
I he Northern Pacific railroad:
THE Noble case we believe to
Jbe wrong, both in principle and