The Ocala banner. (Ocala, Marion County, Fla.) 1883-194?, 1913-04-25


P. o. KNIGHT.
April 14th, 1913.
Hon. Charles E. Davis, Chairman
Committee. Judiciary B, Florida
State Senate, Tallahassee, Florida:
MY Dear Sir-There have been in
troduced into the legislature num-
Der of bills affecting the relations OF
employer and employe, commonly
known as employer and employees LA
bility bills, some of them directed
against the employers as whole,
some of them only against certain
class, and some of them, like senate
bill No. 81, undertaking TO amend Sec
ton $3.50 of the General Statutes, di'
rected against the railroad companies
alone. Senate bills Nos. 81, 81 and
SO are pending before your commit
tees-probably others along the same
line which | have not yet seen copies
of-and Senator Zim's bill along the
same lines, which I understand has
been referred to the committee on or
ganized labor.
The bills are all based upon a
wrong theory and none of them
should be passed, surely the one al
fecting all employers alike should be
passed. because, while it is true that
the bill affecting the relation OF EN-
ployer and employee as applicable to
railroads alone can constitutionally
be passed, it is class legislation OF the
rangest kind. If the bill is a good one
for employees of railroad companies,
it is good for the employees of all com
panies and persons. If it is bad as
applied to employers generally, it is
bad as applied to railroad companies
alone.
The employer in phosphate mines
and in saw mills and other businesses
should be subjected to the same rules
as are applicable to railroad compan
les as employers. The purpose and
practical effect of the proposed bills
is to abolish the doctrines OF assumed
risk and of contributory negligence
to permit employees to recover from
their employers when they have re
ceived injuries, no matter how care
less or negligent they may be, OF
whether they exercise due care OF
not. It is proposed in one breath &c
wipe out all relations Of employer ano
employe that have been established
by the wisdom OF ages.
1t has always been the law, and the
reasons for it have been time AND
time again fully stated by the decis
ions of all the courts Of the United
States, as well as other countries, and
by profound thinkers in the legislative
bodies of the world that it is the duty
of any employee, on entering upon his
service. to ascertain what he is eX-
pected to do and the dangers connect
ed herewith 1t is his duty to eXer-
else care to avoid injuries to himself
He is under as great obligation TO pro-
vide for his own safety from such
dangers as are known to him or are
discernible by ordinary care on his
part, as the employer is to provide for
him. He must take ordinary care to
learn the dangers which are likely to
beset him in the service. He must
not go blindly to his work. Where
there is danger, he must inform him
self. When he is a learner and en-
cages to work in hazardous branch
of the service ne must improve every
opportunity furnished by the employ
er to learn Of his duties and their ac-
companying dangers. If he fails he
is guilty of negligence. He must use
reasonable care in examining his sur
roundings, to observe and take such
knowledge of the dangers as can be
obtained by observation. In perform
ing the duties of his place he is bound
to take notice of the ordinary opera
tion of familiar natural laws, and to
govern himself accordingly. If he fails
to do so, the risk is his own. He is
bound to use his eyes to see that
which is open and apparent to any
person using his eyes: and if the de-
feet is obvious and suggestive of dan
ger, knowledge on his part will be
presumed, as we'll as when the dan
gers are the subject of common
knowledge, And the employer has
the right to rest upon the probability
than anybody would know what was
generally to be seen by his own OBJ
servation.
Employers can only conduct their