The Cairo bulletin. (Cairo, Ill.) 1???-1928, 1910-12-27

The Inicmous Doctrine OF contribu,
tory Negligence.

\
tory Negligence.
The doctrine of fellow servant Is
very important. 1t means that whea
any main enters the employ Of great
corporation he besames responsible for
all the stupidity, earelessness or reck-
lessness OF all his fellow servants. He
doesn't choose his fellow servants.
| They are chosen for him, but he as
sumes all the personal risk which
comes from working with them.
There is still another doctrine which
, the law advances to do the injured out
Of justice. And this doctrine is called
the doctrine OF contrihutory negligence,
and lit Is dramatizrl once for all,"
says William Hard. ia tue case OF
Smith versus Seligman.
"Smith. an engineer for tie Atchison.
Topeka and Sante lie. start.,l Off TO get
some sleep. He was called hack by
the master mechanic.
There was train Of orang that
had to be hauled to Pinto. Smith oh
Jected. He said he felt unable to
handle an engine. The master me
chanic insisted. 1t was an urgent case.
Smith climbed back on his engine
"Smith reached Pinto ut :, O'clock
that afternoon. At $40 IN the evening
he was on his way back to W!nslow.
1T was then that he committed h!s
act Of contributory neglig nee. lie got
| into collision
/ ttIIn had ;rl,.
and thirty minutes. lie fell into II
doze. He forgot just where he was.
He ought to have run his train at that
point off the main track on to side
track. He forgot about it. And In the
midst Of his contrbutory negligence
| another train ran into him
Smiths right hand was badly
| crushed. and its subsequent use for
purpose of his trade was rendered i'm
possible He had made the mistake of
| dropping off to sleep after more than
| thirty hours of continuous work.
1.-THE court of appeals of Texas did
| not condone Smiths offense. The
court admitted that in Arizona. where
the accident happened. there was a
| law forbidding railway companies to
/ work their employees more than six
teen hours at stretch. Under that
| law when man had worked sixteen
hours he was entitled to enjoy nine
hours rest
1.-THE Atchlson, Topeka and Santa
Fe had kept Smith at work for almost
twice the legal length Of time. The
Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe was
| lawbreaker.
| "But Smith was contributory negli-
gent and hopelessly careless person.
His real character was exposed by the
court.
"'The allegation said the court.
that the laws Of Arizona prohibit rail-
way companies from working their
employees for more than sixteen con-
secutive hours does not excuse the
contributory negligence of the appel
liant Smith. which arose from his
working such length of time that he
was untitled for business. He knew
his physical condition far better than
the railroad company could have
known it. and he cannot excuse his
carelessness In falling asleep on hls
engine. The petition presents clear
case Of appellant Smith having been
hurt through his own negligence In
stopping his engine On the main line
instead of taking a siding. as he should
have done"
| Now. that's the whole story. It's
the law. It's the doctrine of contribu
tory negligence
Smith ought to have known better.
Think of man running an engine
along the main line when he was
asleep!
But the courts know their business
Smith got no sympathy from them.
1t was contrlbutory negligence that
Smith did, and 1t was his own fault
And, anyway, it's the law.-Robert
Hunter.