Perth Amboy evening news., 1913-02-26
UPHOLOS
LIABILITY ACT
All Points Raised Have Been
Sustained.
(From the NEWS Correspoadea..)

(From the NEWS Co~rrespoadeat.)
Trenton, Feb. 26:-Upholding the
employers liability act upon all the
points raised, the Supreme Court. in
an opinion by Justice Trenchard, has
just affirmed the judgment of the
Essex County Court of Common
Pleas in the suit of Mrs. Lizzie Aida
Sexton, on behalf Of herself and her
two childl en-, against the Newark
District Telegraph Company. Mrs.
Sections husband, Floyd Sexton. was
employed by the District Telegraph
Company as q lineman and was kill
ed while In the performance of his
duty. Mrs. Sexton then brought this
suit to recover under the employers
liability act, and h Essex county
court gave Judgment in her favor.
The award made to her under the
compensation feature of the act was
1927 a week for 900 weeks. Sexton,
at the time of his death, was receiv-
ing $40 a month, and the award was
forty-1ve per cent. of his weekly pay.
The company obtained a writ OF
certiorari to review the judgment of
the Essex county court. with Judge
William P. Martin presiding. The
certiorari action was argued before
Justices Trenchard, Parker and Min
turn. Sexton was shocked to death
while at work on a pole at Mulberry
and Green streets, Newark.
The suit involved the main en-
ployers' act approved April "a. 1911.
and the supplement. approved May 2.
1911. Sexton was killed at 5 O'Clock
in the afternoon Of July 4. 1911. and
his employment began with this COM
pany May 20. 1911. One OF the
points in the Ease was that the sup
plement OF May 2, 1911, took effect
July 4, that year. On this pc Mt
Justice Trenchard rules that, al
though the supplement did not be-
come effective until July 4, 1t had a
potential existence from the date OF
its approval and SO was binding upon
both employer and employe. SONS
, Of the other points decided by Jus
tice Trenchard are:
The employers liability act abol-
ishes the common law defenses OF
assumption of risk and the fellow
servant rule, and in doing this the
act does not violate the "due process
Of law" and equal protection OF the
law" provisions OF the fourteenth
! amendment of the federal constitu-
/ ton, nor does 1t impair the obliga-
ton of contracts, in violation OF the
federal and state constitutions.
The act does not violate Article l,
paragraph 7 of the state constitution.
providing that 1.-The right of a trial
by. jury shall remain inviolate." This
applies to section II OF the act. the
elective compensation part. pro-
viding that when employer and en-
ploye shall agree to accept the COM
p%ensation feature Of this section,
such agreement shall be a surrender
OF their rights to any other method
or form of COMPENSATION.
Justice T~renchard declares that as
against the objections OF the COM
pany, section ] of the act is clearly
a valid and constitutional enact
ment. Section ] provides for com
A business meeting OF tn6 AH'to be
d~eternIYidh1ld Dheld ut Tbryr, and it is
this section that aboishes common
law defense and the fellow servant
rule.
Objection was made by the com
pany to section OF the act upon the
ground that it makes the employer
liable to pay its employees compensa-
ton for injuries which were not due
to the negligence OF the employer.
1t was urged that such scheme could
only be binding upon the employer
with his consent. for otherwise the
award of compensation unde section
II de~prives him OF his property with
out "due process OF Jaw" On this
point Justice Trenchard says:
This contention as an objection