Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1914-05-14
CBy Charles B. Kaufman Of the Dav'
export Bari
HISTORY.

When slavery existed and q slave
was killed the master was not legally
liable to compensate for the death OF
the slave. This. of course, caused the
master to be rather careless Al to the
safety and life Of the slave himself.
Such q result was undesirable because
1t meant public charges. A law. how
ever. to be effective must have some
liability attached to 1t for disobedtencs'
therefore, the law compelled the master
to give damages to the servant al
tho entirely blameless II his act oc-
casioned the injury to the plaintln so
as to cause him to be more careful ana
80 as to do away with the charges
thrown on the state on account OF such
negligence because before when a
slave was injured or killed he or MS
family would DO thrown upon the state
for support.
The Three Common Law 0s9ensss.
Later certain notifications grew up
within the law on the ground Of fair
ness to the master, that he should not
be absolutely liable but have certain
defenses. The three defenses which
gradually grew up We're contributory
negligence the fellow servant rule
and the assumption OF risk. Contribu-
tory negligence meant that II tho en-
ploye himself was careless, then he
could not recover from the employer
because the injury would in such .
case be the result OF his own nesli-
gence. The term "proximate cause"
was later used meaning that the en-
ployes contributory negligence must
be the direct cause Of the injury.
QlfhO
an employer was liable to strangers
for injuries caused to them by the acts
or carelessness OF his employees in the
course of their employment comm only
known as the doctrine of respondent
superior') he was not liable to one
employe for the injury caused by the
act or default of another employe. In
the United States this doctrine was
first applied by Chief Justice Shaw In
a Massachusetts case in 1912. Chief
Justice Shaw was accustomed to see
two farm hands working together and
so he laid down the fellow servant rule
basing 1t on the theory that one en-
ploye assumed the risk OF the other
because said ne, "One who Is engaged
in the employment OF another for the
performance of specified duties and
services LOT compensation tdhcs upoai
himself The natural and ordinary risks
and perils incidental to the perform :
ance OF such services" Altho this rule
was laid down In the case OF a railroad
still when Chief Justice Shaw laid II
down ne had a picture of two farm
hands In mind. This analogy was easy
for him to apply at that time as ran
WAYS then were very small. Later
when factories grew up and Industrial
conditions became more complicated
various limitations had to be placed
upon the fellow servant rule" be-
cause Il was seen that often the en-
plcye. did not even know each other
to say nothing about assuming the risk
OF such other employees. Consequently
various limitations were placed upon
the fellow servant rule. Some states
held that an injury must be caused by
an employe in the same department
others that it must not be caused by
vice principal superior employe) otn-
ers in the same line Of work, ana 30
on. There were so many limitations
on the fellow servant rule that no one
knew what they might be IN any par
t;crlar state without looking up the
law in such jurisdiction. In Iowa 'of
instance, in order that two persons
were fellow servants under this doc
wine il was necessary that they must