The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1914-08-14
GASES DE IN TEREST

7 ! Tr zs :
 Constafutdona1 Classification in Elm ployer's liability The Employ
 ersi Liability Act of Indkana, insLavs 1911, c. 88 Sec. 1, makes employers
 of more than five persons liable for injuries to. or the death of. an em- negligence of its agents servants, etc. Tn a suit brought under this statute, it was attacked on several grounds, among which was the objection that the classification making employers Of five or more persons liable and leaving employers of less than five persons free from its obligation was vfolative of the 14th amendment to the federal Conatitution and of the state Constitution. The Supreme Court ofsfn dfanasz uphol Ids the consul tuffonalfty of the statute It says. ssThe serious question in the case as applied to the statute, centers in the classification of those who employ five or more persons, as anected by pro- visions of the equal protection of the
 laws clause of the federal and state Copstitutions. It cannot be denied that in drawing the line at employers
 of five or more persons the statute is in some sense arbitrary, but the
 question is Is it so far purely ar
 bitrary as to be without any reason
 able basis2 Every statute is arbi-
 trary in the sense that it is the 1egis-5 Iatfve flat, but with reference to clas- sffication while it must have some reasonable basis upon which to rest it is not essential that courts must be satisfied with the basis; or. put negatively, unless the courts are sat-. isf1ed that there can be no basis in reason on which it can rest, they are not warranted in overthrowing il. " As to the question whether the classi flea
 ton made by the statute here inyolv- ed rested upon some material or sub stantfal basis. and operated upon all alike within the class the court said. sstfle answer depends upon what is meant by all within the class. Does it mean all within the class which the statute affects. or must it 1nclude also those outside that class who may be
 similarly employed or situated as ern- ployers? It appears to us to mean. the former only, for the reason that the statute itself recognizes conditions in degrees of danger, based on mum
 bers employed, and bases It's applica- ton on those differences. Granted. also, that the distinction may be a narrow one, or finely drawn, that only Emphasizes the fact that that makes it all the more difficult for court. in view of such fine distinc-
 drawn ess vandalia, Railroad Company vs Stilwell, 1o4 Northeast ern Reporter. 28e.
 4Out of and In the Course of Elm pIoyments ''-Does an Injury received while riding from work in vehicle furnished by a master to convey the laborers to and from work arise tout of and in the course of employnent's within the meaning of the Massachu- setts Workman Compensation Act? This was the issue in In re Donovan, Supreme Judicial Court, Mass, 104 North heastern Reporter. 431. The Su- preme Judicial Court of Massachu- setts. says: trThe rule has been es- abolished. as we consider in accord ployer's liability in such cases depends upon whether the conveyance has been provided by him, after the real beginning Of the employment. Tn com
 p1iance with one Of the Implied or. express terms of the contract of ern-
 pIoyment, for the mere use of the ern-
 p1oyes, and issons which the employees are required, or as a matter of right are permitted, to use by virtue Of that contract. The finding of the Industrial Accident Board that Donovan's transportation was incl dental to his employment fairly means, in the connection in which it was used, that it was one of the in. cidents Of his employment, fhat it was an accessory, collateral. or gub- sidiary part of his contract of eln-
 ploym ent, something added to the
 principal part Of that contract as a minor, but none the less a real feat
 ure or detail of the contract What ever has been uniformly done in the execution of such a contract by both
 of the parties to 1t we'll may be re-
 garded as having been adopted by them as one of it's terms. Especial
 ly is this so where none Of the pro-
 visions of the contract have been shown by either party, but every thing Is left to be inferred from their con-
 duet. AccordfngIy we ara of the opinion that the industrial
 Board had the right to draw the in ference that Donovan.s injury arose out of and in consequence of his em-
 ployment.''