The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1911-01-14

middle as the rules would require and as, result hundreds of miles away the dynamite car suffers a collision and is blown up. A COW browsing in a pasture near by and a station agent at his lonely post in a country depot next to the field are killed. The far mer can recover for his COW; but the station agents widow has no redress for her husband was a fellow servant of the man whose mistake caused his death. Yet he had no more to do with the yardmaster's act or with his em- ployment than did the COW.
 All who work for a common em- ployer in furtherance of the same purpose are. fellow servants though miles apart. The brakeman, conduc- tors, engineers and firemen of rail road, even if on different trains, are fellow servants. A girl in the tail- bring department of a store and an company have been held to be fellow workers. Foremen, bosses and even superintendents are usually consider ed co-workers unless the rule is speci- fically changed by statute, of the men under them so that even if an acci- dent occurs as a result of following the direct orders of a superior the em- plOyer is not liable.
 In addition to profting by these three notifications of the general law of negligence, the employer has still another defence-contributory negli- gence-which applies in all cases. He escapes penalty for admitted negli- ployee by his own negligent act or omission contributed to cause the ac- cident. Although possibly fair theo- retically this works hardship usually rather than justice. A brakeman of ten rides unnecessarily on the pilot of an engine or member of a track gang goes between cars instead of around to cross the tracks. Reckless ness is sometimes merely the out crop of boyish dare-deviltry, sometimes in the case of bewildered foreigners it is really stupidity and awkwardness. But much of it is the fearlessness and unconcern that are necessary for cautious structural iron worker or bf:]ge builder who was careful Of himself hold his job?
 As though the employer did not have odds enough in his favor the plain tiff has the burden of proof to shoul- der. If he is unable to make out a pretty strong prima facie case the plaintiff is non-suited. The injured worker may have an advantage with the jury but it is difficult to get the case before them. If the evidence is equally consistent with negligence or non- n-negligence on the part of the em- ployer the suit is stopped without submission to the jury.
 D There are further inequalities. The long delay before trial is bread and butter to the worker but merely a postponement of annoyance to the eIn- ployer. The plaintiffs witnesses must usually be fellow workman whose po- sitions are often at stake if they do not stand by the employer.
 fhaSo unfair conditions crow from the legal mis- conception that ev- cry working man from the American Locomotive engineer belonging to strong union to the newly landed tongue-tied and bewildered greenhorn. is on equal terms with the Standard Oil Company or the United States Steel Corporation.
 The law assumes that the workman is as free to accept or refuse place as the corporation is to take him or drop him. The law assumes that the grieving widow of an ignorant labor CT is equal in a legal battle of wits to the experienced and hardened claim agent. The law assumes that the common laborer can secure witnesses to swear to the employers negligence as easily as the latter can to swear to the workers contrlbutory careless ness.
 Admitting that these abstract theor- ies no longer fit modern industry we can try to remedy the conditions in two ways. We can amend the pres- ent laws piecemeal and take away the unfair defences of the employer. AL most every state has taken steps In fled the fellow servant rule. Another group of statutes abolish the .'as- sumption of risk rule'' if the injury resulted from a violation of statute.