The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1910-04-23

gal representative brings suit against
the railroad for this injury or death,
then he forfeits everything he has
paid to the relief department and
gets nothing in return for his money.
Is this an attempt to evade the law
of the State giving employees the
right to sue railroads for damages
when they are injured or killed by
negligence of the railroad?
Judge Manning says: "In our opin-
ion, Is becomes necessary to deter
mine the validity and effect of the
agreement. in order to fix the charac-
ter of the Relief Department Of the
defendant, whether 1t Is an agency or
an association with only benevolent
aims and purposes. or a mere agency
created by the defendant to serve un-
der the cloak of charity, the purpose
of avoiding liability for negligent
injuries received by its empolyes."
'The relief department Of this
court in Nelson's case, LAT N. c. 103
to be a mere agency of the defend
ant; 1t is not incorporated and has
no separate entity" The railroad
controls 1t and forces its members
when they have been injured, to re-
lease the railroad from all liability
or else to forfeit the benefits for
which they have been paying for
years and to forfeit all they have paid
in to the Relief Department. "Is 1t
not the obvious purpose of the COM
pany to place its employees, who may
be negligently injured in the position
to forego the benefits of an associa-
ton which they have helped to cre-
ate, or to take the chance of a suit
with 1t for damages In the courts,
with It's attendant annoyances, de-
lays and uncertainties? What doth
II advantage the employees? Is pot
all the benefit to the company? This
choice Of remedies Is to be made only
by those employees whose injuries or
death are caused by the negligence
of the defendent. Upon no other
contingency is the employe forced to
choose; in no other contingency is he
confronted with an election Of rem
edies, nor Is he under the compulsion
Of choice. Further those who are
injured or killed by negligence, can
receive no benefit stipulated in the
rules and regulations, unless and
until complete release Of action for
damages is properly executed. Such
is the compulsion of the stipulation;
such Is the letter of the bond" The
election of remedies originates In and
is predicated upon this stipulation.
In our opinion this stipulation is an
ingenious scheme devised by the COM
pany TO avoid responsibility for it's
negligence, and as such, is inequit-
able and void. Such would seem to
be the view Of the Federal Congress,
lowing enactment, "a Stat. L. 234 ap-
proved June IL. 1906. No contract
of employment, insurance, relief
benefit or indemnity for injury or
death, entered into by or on behalf
Of any employe, nor the acceptance
of such insurance, relief benefit, or
indemnity, by the person entitled
thereto, shall constitute any bar or
defense to any action brought to re-
cover damages for personal injuries
to, or death of such employee" In
1908 Congress passed another enact
ment making the above provision,
that the railroad by this means could
not prevent suits for damages occa-
stoned by its negligence, even strong
er, but of course, these enactments
apply only to interstate commerce.
The Supreme Court of North Car
olina apparently holds that the Re-
lief Department with it's provisions,
that employees pay so much each
month for benefits if they are in
jured or killed and that prevents
them from instituting suits against
the railroad unless they forfeit every
thing paid in and the benefits accru-
ing to them, is an attempted evasion
Of the law and is void. The employee
is entitled to the benefits for which
he has paid and also is entitled TO
enter suit If he deems it advisable.