The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1910-04-23
WON'T EST0p DAMAGE CLAIMS.
THE NORTH CAROLINA SU-
PRENE COURT HITS RELIEF
DEPARTMENT.
Railroad Cannot Circumvent the
Right OF an Employee to Exact
Damages by Establishment of Ben
eft Department.

Wilmington. n. c., April Is S-The
decision OF the State Supreme Court
this week I'm the case OF Borden VS..
the Atlantic Coast Line has been re-
oeiyed here with much interest in
legal circles and this decision may
some other suits. 1t is also recalled
that an interesting personal damage
suit was landed out OF court not long
4 ago In the superior court of this
county under a ruling the reverse Of
that made by the Supreme Court.
This has also added much to the IN
terest. IL was q case brought for per-
sonal damages by a former employe
OF the Atlantic Coast Line. but coun-
sci for the defense contended In bar
OF such recovery that the injured
man had received benefits from the
relief department. OF which he had
been a member. after being injured.
The case was argued at length before
Judge Allen. and ex-Mayor A. G. RI
caud, OF counsel for the defense,
made an especially strong argument
I'm favor Of the veyy point now decid-
ed by the Supreme Court. He con-
tended that the road could not shirk
It's liability by reason of such an as
sociation. which all employees had to
Join. even though the injured man
received benefits after being injured.
The court held against this conten-
tion and the defense gave notice of
an appeal. However. the defendant
had no money to perfect his appeal
and so he loses on a point now held
I'm his favor by the highest tribunal
In the State. and which up to this
time had not been settled. However
the New Hanover county case Is out
OF court the appeal not having been
perfected and cannot be re-instated.
The Raleigh News and Observer
yesterday made the following inter-
esting report of the decision;
The most important case decided
by the Supreme Court of North Car
olina this term Is the case of Garden
vs.. Railroad Company the opinion in
which Is written by Judge Manning
and was handed down on wednes-
day OF this week.
The question which gives impor-
tance TO the case Is this: Can a rail-
road by the establishment of relief
departments governed by the rail-
road. release itself from suits for
damages when the injury was caused
by its negligence? Judge Manning
IN the opinion of the court says: I'm
our opinion this stipulation is an in
genious scheme devised by the COM
pany TO avoid responsibility for its
negligence and as such Is inequitable
and void"
In 1897 the State legislature pass
ed the Fellow Servant Act, Revisal
1906. section 2646. which gives to all
employees OF railroad companies In
this State the right to maintain an
action against the railroad when they
are injured by the negligence Of any
OF their fellow employees or by defects
I'm the machinery or appliances of the
company and further provides that
no agreement made by any employe
shall waive the benefit of this sec
tion. 1t has been held by the Su-
preme court that this section was
valid and constitutional. and that
railroad could not enter into any con-
tract or agreement waiving their liza
bility for damage to person or prop
erty caused by their negligence.
The railroad (the Atlantic Coast
Line Railway established a relief
department in which only It's en-
ployes are admitted as members and
In which they can remain as mem
bers only so long as they continue to
be employees. AS members they are
required TO contribute each month a
fixed amount regulated by the
monthly pay; the lowest paying 75
cents per month. and the highest
$s.25 per month, according 10 the
benefits TO be received. which range
from $3.50 to $1,000. Each member
agrees to be bound by the rules and
regulations Of the Relief Department.
Rule 60 provides: THE acceptance
by the member OF benefits for injury
shall operate as release and salts
faction OF all claims against the COM
pany and all other companies asso-
ciated herewith as aforesaid. for
damage arising from or growing out
OF such injury" In the latter part
OF the same rule Is this provision: "If