Los Angeles herald., 1910-11-04
.BLEDSOE DECISION
PROFITS WORKERS
Attorney Drake Comments on
Judges Opinion in important
FeIIoW-Servant Case
CLEAR REASONING PRAISED
Courts Statement of Facts De-
CIared to Be of SuperIative
Importance to Labor
CLEAR REASONING PRAISED

| opinion of e. B. Drake, an attorney
Mr.. Drake represented c. G. Patton in
the latter's suit against the Los Ange-
es-Pacifc company, in which Judge
| Bledsoe was called on to construe the
fellow servant doctrine and pass on
the constitutionality Of section 1870 OF
the civil code.
Discussing the matter yesterday, Mr..
Drake said:
Eyes. I am attorney for c. c. Patton
in his suit against the Los Angeles
] Pacific company, tried in the superior
I court of Los Angeles county, in which
Judge b. f. Bledsoe of San Bernardino,
who is now candidate for supreme jus
tice, sat and heard the case before a
| jury in department seven.
"The case was hotly contested on the
part of counsel for the defendant rail-
| Way company. because of the far
reaching effect of the section under
| consideration, and from the further
fact that the jury in the case rendered
a verdict of $12,500 in favor of Mr.. Pat
| ton.
1.-THE matter came up before Judge
| Bledsoe afterward on defendants mo-
| ton for a new trial upon a bill of ex-
ceptions. The sole point involved IN
the motion was the unconstitutionality
of section 1870 of the civil code of this
state.
LAW ON FELLOW-SERVANTS
"The original section provided that
under the decisions of this state, par
| ticularly, all men working for the same
company We're fellow servants, and 1t
was contended that this fellow servant
| rule was abrogated by this new sec
ton: that is, the section as amended,
| and which was under consideration
| before Judge BledSoe, provides that
servants or employees in diffcrent de-
partment of labor or working upon
different railroad train. or machlne,
| etc, are not fellow servants within the
rule of relieving the employer from
liability for the act of a co-empioye, as
heretofore.
Naturally the railroad company
would want this section held unconStl-
tutional, while all employees of every
character, particularly in the state Oh
California, were interested in the stat
ute being upheld, because this might be
said to he the first statute in the state
that gave to the workingman, as
class. any relief from the ant1quated
doctrine of fellow servants, ana tne
unfolding of which statute would add
n. liability to all employers that had
never heretofore existed:
Judge Bledsoe, in his decision on
the motion for new trial, filed writ
ten opinion / considered that, under
the bill of exceptions, the question was
not before the court, and the court
could have, under the circumstances,
disregarded the point of unconstltu-
tionality, but Judge Bledsoe never
lodged a responsibility yet, and he took
the matter under consideration and de-
cided it.
CLARITY OF THE OPINION
aside from the fact that it was de-
cided in my favor, no one that has
had any experience in the practice of
law could fail to note the clearness,
believe we lawyers call it perspicuity,
together with soundness of reasoning
and absolutely unerring citation of au-
thorities.
"To illustrate the clearness of the
opinion, let me quote you from same
as follows
doctrine is enveloped in more or
less obscurity, and much difficulty
has been encountered by judges and
text writers in giving adequate and
sufficient reason for it's adoption in
the first place. Reduced to their
last analysis though, as under
stand them, the reasons given are
based upon either presumed
knowledge of risks by the employe,
an implied assumption of risks by
him. or that 'unruly horse relied
upon by some-public policy.
1t has been determined by a
number of courts of eminence, in
Guiding the United states supreme
court, that the legislative branch
of the government has authority to
limit or even abolish entirely, this
fellow servant doctrine.
And this must be so, because If
there is any force or efficacy to be
accorded to the universally accept
ed rule of respondent superior,
which stands for the doctrine that
the master is liable for the acts
of the servant done in the perfor-
nance of the masters business,
then that rule can and Ill our
Judgment, in proper cases, should
be applied not only as between the
master and a stranger, but also as
between the master and an employe
who is not, in common justice, CO.
responsible for his fellow servants
act In a number of our common
wealths such legislation as is above
mentioned has been had, in some
instances by a more drastic and
sweeping nature than that under
consideration, and in no one of
them, so far as I am advised, has
it's unconstitutionality been decreed.
Courts text writer's and pubicists
seem to agree that the abrogation
of the doctrine is lawful eXpedi-
ent and necessary for the proper
protection and well being of the
great body of our people, to-wit: the
laboring classes. Such being the
case, regardless of the precise rea-
sons that may have operated to
give rise to its existence originally,
no court should now cling to it in
the face of legislative enactments
to the contrary, save in the event
that such enactments are clearly
and undoubtedly within constitu-
tional inhibtions. The act under
consideration herein being in my
judgment of general nature. with
in the scope of the legislative pow
er, and calculated to be of SUBJ
stantial and lasting benefit to the
great mass of the community,
should be upheld
1t follows that the motion for a
new trial should be denied, and it is
so ordered.
IF there is another judge or lawyer
in California that can write a better
opinion than this. it has not been my
10, lit