Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1913-05-15
UNAssUMIN0 LITTLE RULING ~
SUPREME COURT HARD BLOW
TO RAILROADS.
CONTRADICTORY NEGLIGENCE
PLEAS BARRED IN SUITS
Where Corporation Has Violated State
Laws or Failed to Provide Safe
Places to Work, Liability for Aeei-
dents Must Be Assumsd-chisf Jus.
tics Weaver Writes Opinion.
Special to Times-Republican.


Des Moines. May l5.-An unassum-
ing little decision which slipped out
OF the supreme court the other day
scarcely noticed is going to cause rail-
to get exceedingly busy in Iowa. 1t
came from the pen oe the chief justice
and it is 4 thorough and sweeping up
holding of legislation enacted by the
Thirty-thir general assembly that is
almost revolutionary as to railroad ac-
cidents of certain kind.
The decision is. in effect.
that where railroad company
has violated any statute en-
acted for the safely of employees.
and this has contributed to an acct
dent. and where there is the duty OF
furnishing safe place to work, then
in damage case the company is barred
from offering any of the old common
law defenses, namely:
Contributory negligence can not be
pleaded except to diminish the amount
of the damages.
Assumption of risk is not to be con-
sidered unless the danger p patent
and imminent.
The complete wiping out Of these two
common law defenses which have
played such large part in personal
injury damage cases since the days OF
Blackstone, is due to the passage OIL
two senate bills four years ago. One OF
them added to an old section OF the
code a provisoS about liability for
damages the. ,proviso about the dlsap-
pearance of contributory negligence
and assumption of risk and use OF the
former not as a defense but merely to
reduce the damages,
Gist Of Courts Ruling.
The attorneys for the Des MONIES
Union Railway Company, against
which the deciding suit was brought,
on a claim of one Thomas Melody for
injuries received by being thrown I'M
der a switch engine when the foot
board was covered with zee and the
hand rail broke, undertook to con-
vince the court that the contributors
negligence part should apply only
where the accident was due to the IN
Jury of fellow servant and 1t was
intended to modify the old fellow SER
! want rule The court refused to en-
! terrain this view and held that:
! ut is difficult indeed to suggest or
! IMAGINE why the legislature should Of
fer this claimed premium or shield LOT
the more direct primary and culpao pie
wrong Of the employer itself and deny
(; Ii where the wrong Is indirect ana sec
| ondary only. result so illogical anu
essentially. unjust ought not 70 De
| sanctioned by the courts unless the
| statute clearly commands 1t in express
| terms or by necessary implication. we
! do not so read the statute.
Applied to Common Carriers.
| In regard to the other statute the
| court holds that it applies to common
] carriers just as to all other employers
and the plea Of assumption of risk
because of plaintiffs continuance IN
the employment is available to a ram
way company only as 1t is available
to every other employer, and that IS
by pleading and proving that the perm
/, to which plaintiff was exposed was 81
apparent and threatening that rea
| sonably prudent person Wouio nav
! abandoned the service.
Tn conclusion Chief Justice Weaver
| wrote. "These statutes have evidently
| been enacted in difference 10 d 'e.'
general conviction that uhoer the
greatly changed conditions OF moaerh
| times some Of the rules and prlnclpies
of the law Of negligence having thelr
origin far in the past ana especians
| such as relate to the reciprocal outies
of master and servant, are Ill aoaPteu
to the accomplishment OF just resulte
IN many Of the cases coming up IL.
judicial consideration. We need not
here discuss the justice or injustice Oh
,his view 7. is enough that it is wide
ly entertained and the Legislature mas
enacted statutes to give it erect. 81
long as these statutes are WITHIN con-
stitutional limitations courts are bound
to give them effect according to their