The Butler weekly times. (Butler, Mo.) 1881-1918, 1917-02-22
Holding in the Gibbs-Duvall Case.

BY the Court: Owing to the
extreme Importance and the gray
ity of this case on both sides, l
have been glad to hear an extend
ed argument, and it has been full
~ discussed on both sides; and
it is a case, of course, clothed with
a very heavy responsibility for
the Court. But that is what the
courts sit for; to take such a re-
sponsibility when they have to,
and to arrive at an impartial de-
cision. Now this fellow servant
law we have been talking is in
full force in this state, except as
to railroads. This is a farmers
case-involving the management
of and work upon big farm
down here, or ranch-and this
law is one that the farmers: espe-
cially have been exceedingly anx-
'ious to retain. 1t means no more
nor less than this: that if five or
six men are employed by another
man, as fellow servants, and one
of them is negligent and another
one is injured thereby, there is no
liability upon the part of the en-
ployer. ! regard this a very be-
Inefficient law, as applied to farm
ing and like work, as, otherwise,
an employer would assume peri
lous risks. I still think that there
are but two real points in this
case. Assuming, for the time be-
ing, that Blough was the vice
principal: now, they are engaged
down there in one common en-
ployment, and they all gather
around that fire and plaintiff
here claims that he was holding
an auger over the fire, and that
Blough was crimping a cap. Let
us assume that this testimony
shows that Blough was negligent
that he crimped the cap too far
up towards the explosive sub
stance that was in it, and it ex-
ploded and caused the injury.
Now, in the absence Of any au-
thority exercised over plaintiff by
Blough assuming that he was
the vice principal--they were fell
low servants; and it comes clear
~ within the law that has been
read here tonight. | do not think
the evidence shows that the act
of the plaintiff was imposed upon
him by the order or authority OF
Blough, because. | take from the
testimony. that before there was
any fire at this particular place,
plaintiff was told to get al anger
and warm it. That was the au-
,thority exercised by Blough over
the plaintiff, and the plaintiff
and his father could have warmed
these augers where they first got
them, SO far as any showing il
made, if they had seen fit; but
they chose to warm them at this
particular fire. Assuming that
he was vitc-principal. it would be
a long stretch it seems to me, to
hold that that was such an eXer-
else of authority over the plain
tiff. as would make the principal,
Mr., Duvall. liable, under all the
facts and circumstances in this
ease.
Now am inclined to think that
ut the time the injury happened
they We're engaged in a common
work there, and were fellow ser
wants. AS to the first proposition,
do not think there is any testi-
nony here at all, that defendant
acre ever gave gave anybody -att--
hority to cmplo va vice-principal.
do not believe there is any tes-
imony that Blough out there was
any authority with the
consent or knowledge or by the
of the defendant here.
n other words, | don't think that
he defendant. under this testi-
nony, ever consented that Blough
ould so bind him. think that If
'lough had made a debt at a gro
cry store IA dry goods store on
he credit of defendant here, that
defendant would not. hayn--been --
ound. I think that if Mr.. How
I'd had made those debts, he
you'd have been bound ! think
hat if Blough had hired men, de-
endant would not have been com
clled to have abidcd by that en-
loyment. The testimony shows
hat he had no authority to en-
10y and no authority to dis