Bisbee daily review., 1914-03-19
LIABILITY LAWS OF
 ARIZONA UPHELD BY
 THE SUPREME COURT
JUSTICES HAND DOWN DECISION THAT INJURED EmPLoYE MAY
 CUE UNDER COMMON LAW

or under the common law.
 Such is the opinion of the supreme court. delivered in upholding the Iudg- ment of the superior Court Of Yavapai | in the case of John Ujack versus the | Consolidated Arizona SmeltinR com ! pany, of Humboldt. The company ap. ! pealed from Shat judgment and prob. ably will take the matter to the Stu | preme court of the United States. Chief Justice Alfred Franklin wrote the Arizona Supreme Court decision. which was concurred in by Jus,ice H. D. Ross Justice Cunningham wrote an opinion dissenting in part but con curing in the result
 Following are some pertinent ex- tracts from the majority opinion:
 Under the law of Arizona an em- ploye who is injured fin the course of his employment. has open to him three avenues. 'sThey are:
 "i. The common law liability re- lieved or the fellow servant defense and in which the defenses of contr.. butory negligence and assumption of risk are questions to be left to the jury.
 "2. Employers liability law which applies to hazardous occupations where .he injury or death is not caused by his own negligence.
 @. The compulsory compensation law. app,icab to especially danger ous occupations. by which he may re cover compensation without fault up on thc part of the employer.
 Prior to the adoption of the con s;fution an emGloye who he'd suf fered an injury. CT his personal repre- sentative in case of ieath. had bu, enc rsmedy--the common law liability with all its defenses of fellow servant. contr.bltory negligence and assumed risk
 The constitution declared for .his state different and more advanced as well as humane imbllc policy, one in common with the present day en- llghtoncd thought and conscience, by providing for the employers liability and compulsory compensation in all hazardous or especially dangerous cmplcymen.s
 ''The appellee contends that he was entitled under the facts or the cas- to maintain his suit for personal in- jury under the employers liability law. while the appellant insls-s that his exclusive remedy was to be found 1 in the compulsory compensation law.
 The controverted question may be disposed of by a correct answer to ! this question Does the compulsory compensation act when no. disaf- firmed prior to injury. limit the rem edy of the injured employe to the com pensation provided in that act, or may 1 he after tre injury elect between his remedy under the act and the other remedies of the common law liability anu employers liability?
 "The appel ee was in the employ ment of appellant at the ime the workmen's compensation law took CT | feet and had been in such employ ment for more than ten days there after when he was injured. Neither ] the employer nor the en.P;oye has | .aken any affirmative action in rec ognition of the law. either to approve or repudiate II.
 "sssWhen conflicts occur tetween the constitution and the statues the latter must give way. If the consu- tuition makes the compensation obli- gatory on the employer and optional as to the emp.oye. to be exercised alter the injury, that is the end Of 1t. The cons -itution says the legislature shall enact workmen's compensation law b. which compulsory compensa' ton shall be requided to be paid to any such workman by his employer f@s Provided that 1t shall be opuonai with said employe to settle for such compensatiOn or re-ain the right to sue said employer as provided by this constitution. This mandate ot the legislature was carried out in the en- acting of the workmens compulsory compensation law and iu SO doing there was created new civil acioh heretofore unknown to our laws avail able to the employees injured. It Is optional with the injured employe as to whether he will accept the com pensation. The employees rlghs to exercise this option being constitu' tional right. legislation Is impotent to deprive him of it. The legislature can not require him to cleo, in advance cl any injury, or the accural or any right. which remedy he will pursue Tor redress.
 Therefore any expressions m the wol kmen's compulsory compensation act that seemingly require that the employe shall elect. in advance Of in' jury, his remedy for redress, should he read and construed in view of the constitutional provision permitting him to exercise his option after the Injury either to claim compensatioil or sue for damages
 ---------------------
 Pictures of Bisbee at the Royal Theatre. See yourself as others see you. (i02)