Ashland tidings. [volume] (Ashland, Or.) 1876-1919, 1913-04-28
LIABILITY LAW is HIT
Labor Forces Aroused by Decision of
the Oregon Supreme Court on
Employers Liability Law.

state supreme court in the case of
Lawton VS.. Davidson and Morgan,
Fleidner & Boyce, is rousing the la
Dor forces of this city as has no 9TH
er recent decision of the courts.
When the decision was first rendered
its effect was not appreciated But
now the labor leaders and their legal
advisors conclude that one of the
most vital purposes of the liability
law is defeated, through what they
charge is very narrow construction
placed by the supreme court.
This law, which was advocated by
tive of abolishing the defenses in i'm
organized labor with the express mo-
jury cases known as fellow serv-
ant" Independent contractor and
'contributory negligence" was un-
derstood to establish beyond doubt
the joint liability of the general con-
tractor with his sub-contractors in
work. This provision was inserted
so as to prevent responsible contract
ors from sub-letting parts of the
work to irresponsible men or COM
panies, and loading liability for dam
ages through negligence upon these
who did not have the means to pay.
1t had been found that the practice
was so general as to make collection
of civil damages often impractical
The sub-contractor was construed to
be in charge of the employe, and if
anything happened, had no money
with which to pay judgment for
damages. When the labor forces
1 concentrated their efforts upon en-
actment of the employers liability
law they expressly had the measure
framed so as to prevent shifting re-
sponsibility in this manner, but the
decision of the supreme court nulli-
fies this purpose.
In the case decided, Morgan, Field
ner & Boyce were erecting a build
ing, and hired Davidson to drive piles
| y
occurred to one of Davidson's en-
ployes he was joined VITA the big
company in the personal injury suit.
The supreme court holds that David
son was an independent contractor,
and the only one responsible to the
employe for injuries received from
defective pile driving machinery.
This shows that the court vet retains
the defense, independent contract
OIL" which the labor people thought
they had abolished completely in
sub-contract work.
The court reasons thai, as "All
owners, contractors, sub-contractors,
corporations or persons whatsoever,
engaged in the construction Of" etc.,
are Joined by the word or" the
duty and liability imposed by the law
relates to the present named sever
ally, and not jointly, and this not
withstanding the fact that in the
same connection the following Ian
guage is used: And generally all
owners, contractors or suh-contract-
ors and other persons having charge
Of" etc. The court holds that the
''or'' here Immediately preceding the
and must control the 'and" so that
it should also be read as or
THE general purpose of the act
ems clear to us" said prominent
labor leader this morning. 'It was
to give labor better protection in life
and limb, and executing this pur-
pose, provided for safe machinery.
Providing this safe machinery was
made a duty of everyone interested
in or engaged in the work. Such
provision cannot be said to exist so
long as an irresponsible sub-contract-
or. is to be solely charged with the
safety of men he employed on a big
job"
Among the legal advisors of the
laboring men it has been said that
common knowledge on construction
points the fact that 'and" is to be
"or," and cor" to be read and
Unfortunately In view of this,
/, the general opinion of those who
have expressed themselves is that
the court should have found no diff
Guilty whatever in constructing the
law to say what the people enacting
thought and intended it should say.
AS the effect of such construction
would be on the humane side of the
study, the laboring men marvel still
more at the decision. They insist
that it should have been constructed
. to give the amplest protection to and
the fullest right of action tc labor.
; Dickens "Little DOrrit" Dies, 100