The Cairo bulletin. (Cairo, Ill.) 1???-1928, 1910-11-25
BARBAR!C AMERICA.
The Infamous Doctrine of Contrbu-
tory Negligence.

tory Negligence.
The doctrine of fellow servant is
very important. 1t means that when
any man enters the employ of great
corporation he becomes responsible for
all the stupidity. carelessness or rcck-
lessness of all bis 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 il called
the doctrine of contributory negligence,
and lit is dramatized once for all"
says William Hard, sin the case of
Smith versus Seligman.
"Smith. an engineer for the Atchson,
Topeka and Sante Ee, started off to get
some sleep. He was called back by
the master mechanic.
There was train of oranges that
had to be hauled to Pinto. Smith OBJ
jected. He said he felt unable to
chanic insisted. 1t was an urgent case.
Smith climbed back on his engine.
Smith reached Pinto at 8 o'clock
that afternoon AT $50 in the evening
he was on his way back to Winslow
1T was then that he committed his
act of contributory negligence. He got
into a collision.
HE had been on duty thirty hours
and thirty minutes. He fell into a
doze. He forgot just where he was.
He ought to have run his train at that
point off the main track on to a side
track He forgot about it. And in the
! midst Of his contributory 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.
'"rhe court of appeals of Texas did
! not condone Smiths offense. The
court admitted that in Arizona. where
the accident happened, there was q
law forbidding railway companies to
work their employees more than six
teen hours at stretch Under that
law when a man had worked sixteen
| hours he was entitled to enjoy nine
, hours rest.
"The Atchison, Topeka and Santa
Fe had kept Smith at work for almost
twice the legal length Of time, The
Atchison. Topeka and Santa Fe was a
lawbreaker
But Smith was contributory negli-
gent and hopelessly careless person.
His real character was exposed by the
court
1.-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 a length of time that he
was untitled for business. He knew
his physical condition far better than
the railroad company could have
known 1t, and he cannot excuse his
carelessness in falling asleep on his
engine. The petition presents a 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 contributory negligence that
Smith did. and it was his own fault.
And, anyway, it's the law.-Robert
| Hunter.