Evening journal., 1910-01-10
DOCTRINE OF
FELLOW SERVANT
Continued FROM First Page

Nohbhu3N AAoAh AAsN Aeeo
quences Of responsibility for accidents |
TO employers, aud have been his de-
Tense against the plaintiff injured by
the negligence OF his fellow servant
What gives the fellow servant ruling
its current Importance is the fact that
the public hitherto left out Of account
by the courts is emerging into the
discussions field and demands to be
heard as to the ruling.
Concern Of the Public.
1T seems to be the fact that of the
accidents of industry about ono-half may
be referred TO tho business and are incl
dental to it; about three tenths may be
referred to the workman; and about two
tenths are to be referred 20 the employer.
Os the three parties concerned in indus
trial accidents them the public is FAR
and away the party most seriously con-
cerned. All the more when we know that
reliable estimates declare that only about
Is per cent. OF persons injured in indus
trial accidents ever recover for their in
iuries. Therefore eighty-dve per cent fail
TO recover and become, in one way or an
other. and to a greater or less degree, a
charge upon the public. It Immediately
becomes pertinent for tho public To say
Just how it is TO bear this burden. 1t be-
comes pertinent to tho Christian senti-
ment and sense OF that public to say that
its part shall be borne with regard to con-
serving character and self-respect; that,
since II must bear a large part OF the
consequences OF industrial accidents, it
shall bear them with intelligence, kind
ness, and iustice-with moral economy for
all concerned. And therefore 1t is insisting
and VIII more and more insist that the
industry Immediately concerned shall di-
rectly bear the cost of its accidents ire
spectve Of the fellow-servant ruling.
And indirectly the public will ultimately
bear the burden by paying the price for
/ the goods OF the industry which Il buys
So shall the maimed life. and the lives
dependent, conserve their powers and
characters and continue useful and valu-
able members Of society.
''The classic pronouncement OF the fel-
Iow-servant' rule comes from the lips Of
the great Chief Justice Shaw, of Massa-
chusetts. His judgement was rendered in
the now world-famous Farwell case
Farwell was an engineer Of the Boston
and Worcester r. r. Somewhere between
Boston and Worcester a switchman care
lessly opened a switch and let Farwells s
train into tho ditch. by which the locomo-
tive was wrecked and Farwell lost a hand
Chief Justice Shaw in delivering his judg-
ment against Farwen said, In considering
the rights and obligations arising out OF
particular relations, Il Is competent FOR
courts of justice TO regard consideration,
OF policy and general convenience, and &c
: draw from them such rules as will. II
I their practical application. best promot,
the safety and security Of all parties con
cerned.' one OF tho parties concerned
:, was the public whose interests this rulinl
forgot
What were the grounds for Shaw
ruling? These: CD In a common
service every servant IS an observer
of every other Co. II the servan
does not care to take the risk of negli
gence among his fellow-servants h
may leave the service CD Hazardou
employments command higher wage
than employments which are not haz
ardous, and the higher wages cover IN
risks. (4) A contract is implied where
by the plaintiff assumed the risk tina
his fellow servant might be incompet
ent. What shall our modern intelll
gence say to these grounds? What ha
IL already said? That they are fantas
teal, ideal, theoretical and indicate a
enormous ignorance of how the othe
half lives In the vast complexity
modern industry IL is utterly impossi
bio for "A servant TO be an observer {
the conduct of other servants 4
state this fact is 10 secure It. Neithc
may the servant leave the service un
less nc leaves il at the expense Of hi