Arizona republican. [volume] (Phoenix, Ariz.) 1890-1930, 1912-01-17
WEDNESDAY......Jan. l.. 1912
The Supreme Court Decision.

The announcement that the SUI
preme court of the United States has
upheld the constitutionality of the
employers liability law will be re-
ceived with distinct qualification by
practically all the people Of this
country. The Republican believes
furthermore that even those who op-
posed the law will in time come to
view it as a matter of right and with
a feeling that justice and equity run
through the warp and wool Of the
entire decision.
The features of this decision are
the abrogation of the fellow servant
rule and of the doctrine of assumed
risk. Both these doctrines are based
on maXims of the common law The
first, briefly. is to the effect that an
employe could not collect from his
employer damages for injuries re-
ceivcd because of the negligence of d
fellow employe; and the second
absolved the employer from liability
for injury sustained by an employc
who received his injury in the per
Torrance of a hazardous service
knowing such service to bc hazard
GUS
y fayorite Illustration used 10y be
levers in the fellow servant rule has
been something like this: They sup
employer to go to work chopping
down trees one of them is struck
by the others axe and, they say, it
would be manifestly unfair that he
be allowed to collect damages from
his employer for such an injury.
But that Illustration is hardly i'm
point any more. The rule was prob
ably a just one when business and
industry had not attained to tAe COM
pleXity it has assumed in modern
times. In this illustration there are
only three persons involved and. the
occupation in which the employe re-
ceives his injury is a simple one. But
now there are railroads employing
thousands Of people; there are mines
and factories employing other hun
dreds Of thousands. \ railway con-
ductor, for instance, may be hurt in
a collision that occurs through the
negligence of fellow servant
whom he never saw and If whom
he never heard \ miner may be
smothered to death 10y the negligence
OF an engineer Of whose existence he
was not even aware. Is il just to
say there should be no recovery be |
cause the two men happened to bc |
employed by the same individual !
firm. Or corporation?
1t is also to be said there is no
longer the same reason for the doc |
trine Of assumed risk there once was. |
The theory has been that because q
man takes a dangerous occupation
he does so because he wants to. III
he doesn't want to take the risk he /
should let the job alone, has been
the accepted rule But. unfortunately. |
the man may have a family to sup
port. He may not be able To- pick !
and choose in the matter Of occupa-
ton. A man will take any kind Of
employment rather than see his wife
and children go hungry; so it cannot !
be said he is altogether "A free agent
He must work. and if he can't get |
work at safe occupation. he must
accept work at an unsafe occupation.
The Republican believes the abroga-
ton of this rule-a rule we have out
grown i'm the onward march of civili-
zation-is both wise and just.
The Republican believes also that
the validity OF the employers liability
law will entail no hardship on en-
ployers. 1t believes that when they
come to cast up their accounts at the
end of the year it will be found their
losses from damages for personal in
juries will be no larger than they
have hitherto been. And this will