Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1912-01-16
Fellow Servant and Contributery
Negligence Doctrines Abolished.
ASSUMPTION OF RISK LIMITED
Employe Who Knows Danger Of
Task is Protected.
vANDEBANTER GIVES DECISION
Justice Considers Large Number Of
Objections and Reject. Each In
an Opinion Prepared By
Himself.

WASHINGTON. Jan. 1S-After neafly
a years consideration the supreme court
today gave It's unanimous approval 10 the
employers liability law enacted by con-
gress IN 1905 10 take the place OF sins
liar act declared unconstitutional.
The decision marks an epoch in labor
The old common law. hedging in the
rights Of employees, is displaced in sew
erai particulars by the statute approved
today. Notably among these is the aboll-
tion Of tho fellow servant doctrine and
the substitution Of law making employ
ers fable fer the negligence Of an EN-.
ploye resulting In injury to an interstate
commerce. employe. Furthermore II frees
the employe from "contributory negli-
gcnce" In many instances and limits the
effect OF the doctrine IN others and like
wise in many cases llberates the ems
ploye from assuming the risk when he
enters employment knowing the. danger
in his employment.
In the Bessie Babcock case from Mon
tana, tho Mary A. Walsh case from
Massachusetts and the EdIar G. Nondau
case from Connecticut the law was at.
tackled seemingly from every eoneeivabls
point OF view.
objections overraied.
Justice vandevanter, In an original
oplnion, considered these objections and
rejected each. He first decided that con-
gress had the power TO regulate the
duties Of the common carriers In respect
to IN esafety OF thslr employees, while
both arc engaged in commerce among tho
states and the liability Of the former for
injuries sustained by tho latter.
both have real or substantial relation
10 interstate commerce and therefore are
within the range OF this power" the JUS
tioe said.
Objections were refuted that the law
prevented contracts whereby the railroad
exempted itself from liability and that
the law improperly classified carriers
tintolhterstate and intaastste sroup& An
thoritles were cited also TO show that no
valid objection could be founded 10 tho
fact that several states already have de-
termlned the liability Of Interstate COM
merco employers Pursuing this hne, the
Justice said that nov that congress has
acted. tho laws of the states. insofar as
they cover the same field, are superseded
for necessarily that which Is not supreme
must yield TO that which IL.
state Must Obey.
Finally Justice vandevanter considered
the position advanced by Judge Baldwin
Of the Connecticut supreme court OF err
rors that Connecticut could not enforce
the law because its public policy was
contrary TO the law.
"ew are unable TO assent to tho view
that the enforcement of the rights whlel,
the congressional act creates was orig
inally Intended to be restricted to the
federal courts.' Justice Nandeyanter
said. The act contains nothing which
is suggestive Of such a restriction.
.sThe suggestion that the act OF con-
gress is not In harmony with the policy
OF the state, and therefore, that tho
courts of the state are free to decline
jurisdiction, is inadmissable. because II
presupposes what in legal contemplation
does not exist.
when congress, In the exerton OF
power confided to 1t by the constitution.
adopted that act 1t spoke for all the peo-
pie and all the states and thereby es-
tablished a policy for all. That policy
is as much the policy Of Connecticut az
IL the act had emanated from Its own
legislature and should be respected ae-
cordingly in the laws Of the state"
Justice vandevanter said the court was
notd isposed to believe that the exer-
else OF Jurisdiction by the courts would
be attended by an appreciable inconyeni-
enee or confIscation.