Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1913-02-21

| ton of the legal right of one person if II
j jured by another to recover.
I The mere fact that it has ben a pre-
| edent in our State for many years, if
can be shown that the rule ought to b I
! modified, should not stand in our wa
! For more than 40 years this State J.
| a long line of judicial determination
| had established the rights of people ur
der their insurance policies. fully an
completely established it, yet, but few
Legislatures ago they removed from the
/ court entirely every appea4 A4va. ,-i.
| son who burned the entire. State
Maine. And nothing goes to the court
| Their rules were established in a dif
| ferent form of procedure, or establish
( by records. They wiped out the entir
/ court procedure, for any man in II
| State of Maine could not go to a cour
or a jury unless first an amount WA
| determined by the court referee
Our own national government, in 100
placed upon its statutes modification.
| of this law which the State would d
well to heed, and if it had done so be
| fore and adopted the rule of negligence
| of the United States, large amount o
| unjust or adverse criticism of GU
| courts would have been avoided, 1t l..
because they feel that in the interpre
| tation of the rules justice is not beins
| done, and so in the line of our nationa
government, / would just call attention
! to two or three rules that were estab
| lished in 1906 by our government, be
| cause in the opinion of our law maker.
at Washington the time had come whel
| the rule of negligence should b,
| changed.
BE it enacted. etc, that every common
| carrier engaged in trade or commerce II
| the District of Columbia. or in any ter
ritory of the United States, or between
| the several states, or between any terri
/ tory and another, or between any terri
/ tories and any state or states, or the Dis
| trict of Columbia, or with foreign ma
| tons. or between the District of Golun
bia and any state or states or foreign ma
| tions, shall be liable to any of its EN-
/ ployes. or. in the case of his death, tC
| his personal representative for the beneti.
of his widow and children, if any, if none
then for his parents, if none, then for hi
next of kin dependent upon him, for al
damages which may result from the negn
/ gence of any of its officers, agents, or
| employees, or by reason of any defect o.
/ insuficiency due to its negligence in it
cars, engines, appliances. machinery
| track roadbedi ways. or works
| OF course they could only take inter-
| state matters; they could only take ur
| questions of carriers running from one
! state to another. They could not come
into our State and say what the rule OF
| negligence should be for matters distinct
ly within the State. They could pass a
rule for intereommerce between states
They had the right to do that. It showed
the opinion of the government; it showed
the opinion of the President of the Unit
ed States in signing the bill
| Notifications of this rule have come
by common consent by those familiar
with the hardships and sufferings II
has imposed. The gentlemen of this
judiciary committee have unanimous
ly reported that this bill ought to pass.
Look at this section THAT every COM
mon carrier engaged in trade or COM
merce in the District of Columbia OF
in any territory of the United States,
| or between the several states, or be-
tween any territory and another, or
between any territory or territories and
any state or states, or the District OF
Columbia. or foreign nations, or be-
tween the District of Columbia or any
state or states or foreign nations
shall be liable to any of its employees
or in case of his death, to his per
sonal representative for the benefit OF
his widow and chi. lren, if any, if none
then for his parents if none, then FOL
his next of kin dependent upon him
for all damages which may result from
the negligence of any Ct its officers
4 agents or employees, or by reason ot
any defect OF insufffciency due to #
negligence in its cars, engines, appli-
ances. machinery track, road bed
! ways or works. re-
; The fellow servant doctrine which
has always stood a mountain to some
: poor man that lost his life, due to {
Il fellow servant, is brushed away, anC
u the next section. reads;
: Section ?. That in all action here
5 after brought against any common
/ carriers TO recover damages for per
n sonal injuries to an employee o
It where such injuries have resulted il
t his death. the fact that the employee
o may have been guilty of contributor,
y |
n where his eontributory negligenc
S was slight and that of the employee
e was gross in comparison, but tn
e damages shall be diminished by tn
:. | jury in proportion to the amount q
J. negligence attributable to such en-
ployee All questions of negligence
- shall be for the jury
In other words, not as in our State
\ | hedged around and governed by tn
proof so long but it says the ques
tion of contributory negligence shall
not be a defense. and the jury shall
say what part of it shall be allowed
The United States rule, adopted b,
our country, says that some techni
cal, insufficient and slight act shall
not be bar from making a recovery
That is the law of the Unite,
States. They have gone as far a
they could and they have taken ever,
State within their jurisdiction undo
the law OF the common carrier.
Our government adopted and estab
lished this rule in 1906, and were GU
State to follow the rule of the Unite,
states. it would seem it would be NJ
/ I,o rfICbi,