Bisbee daily review., 1917-07-05
.EMPL0YERS' LIABILITY
 LAW IS UPHELD
 BY SUPREME COURT
Supreme Court Makes Ruling Upon Two Cases One From The Superior Court of This County.

diets for damages awarded against two
 Arizona mining corporations for in juries received by employees, yesterday were affirmed by the supreme court. The mining companies are the lnspi- ration Consolidated Copper company of Gila county and the Superior and Pittsburg Copper company of Cochise county.
 l In the latter case, Frank Tomich. a | few hours after he first had com menced his lahors for the mining company. was injured and commenc- ed action against the company. passing it on the employers liability law. He was awarded sS,000. The company demurred to the action on the ground that obedience to the liability law vio- lated the Fourteenth Amendment by depriving the defendant of it's property without due process of law in impos- ing unlimited liability on it as an em ployer for personal injuries sustained by an employe while in its employ in cases where defendant has been guilty of no fault, want of care or neglect of duty and because the statute attempts to give plaintiff the right to recover judgment for personal injuries not withstanding the injuries for which said judgment is sought were contrib uted to by plaintiffs negligence.
 Justice Cunningham in his opinion affirming the judgment of the lower court says in part as follows:
 Appellant contends that Chapter VI of Title IA is void for the reason it's terms conflict with Sections and ' of Article XVIII of the state consti- tuition.
 Section V is that:
 "'The defense of contributory negli- gence or of assumption of risk shall, in all cases whatsoever, be a question of fact and shall, at all times, be left to the jury
 '"This section does not restrict the power of the legislature to modify or abolish the defense of contributory negligence. The restriction contained in the section is clear that no law shall be enacted which attempts to make the defense of contributory neg ligence or assumption of risk. when in terposed. determinable by the courts are made to depned upon facts when they are properly interposable. and in terposed they are required to be es- tablished by preponderance of the evidence to the satisfaction of the jury Whether the plaintiffs negligence contributed to the wrong. or whether the plaintiff assumed the risk and dan ger from which the wrong arose. must be determined as fact from the evi- dence by the jury.
 Section commands the legislature to enact an employers liability law. by the terms of which any employer shall be liable for the death or injury of workmen employed in all hazardous occupations named, and any other in dustry designated by the legislature, whenever such death or injury is caused by any accident due to con dition or conditions of such occupa- tion, except when such death of in jury has been caused by the negli- gence of the employe killed or injur ed"
 The opinion recites single restric- ton placed upon the legislature in carrying out this constitutional man. date. That restriction is found in the foreging words. except when such. etc" A careful examination, said the court of the act, dicloses no violation of the limitation on the power of the legislature.
 Concerning the allegation of contrib utory negligence set forth in the de fendant's answer, the court says: "The defendant having in its answer ad- mitted that it's negligence in part was the cause of the damage by setting forth a charge of contributory neGli- gence against the plaintiff authorized a verdict against the defendant in any event The matters left open for in jury were the amount of the damage the plaintiff was entitled to recover as measured by the allegations of the complaint and the evidence. and, whether the accident was due to condition or conditions of employment and such as is unavoidable.
 Replying to allegations of irregular ity in the trial court, the opinion pro ceeds: While the record discloses many departures from the ideal tlial of a lawsuit. these departures were consented to. acquiesced in. submitted to or indulged by appellant without objection. and do not appear atfirma- lively upon the record to have worked prejudice to appellants rights. The verdict returned is large in amount, but that matter lay with the jury. No question is made that the verdict is not sustained by substantial evidence. Much of the same ground was gone over in tbe- ease of the Inspiration company but n-tlat case contrbiutory negligence on the part of the appellee was alleged that the damages he sut- | fered. an injury to his eyes, was the result. of his failing to nave proper ! treatment in time The judgment ol