The labor world. [volume] (Duluth, Minn.) 1896-current, 1920-06-05

tho supreme court for some time after
it had been argued and submitted, in
dicating a division Of opinion among
the justices, but all Of them finally
came to the views Of Justice Dibell
as expressed in his official opinion.
Under our make-shift workmen 3
compensation act an accident is defined
as a personal injury resulting from a
sudden, violent and external cause arts
ing out of and occurring during the
course of employment. 1t was held by
attorneys for employers that freezing
in the course of employment was not
an accident within the Minnesota
workingmen' compensation act, and
they had very good reason for pressing
such claim, but Justice Dibell, taking
broad view of the law, and the fact
that many woclzmcn arc exposed in our
cold climate to freezing, which results
in temporary disability, frequently in
permanent incapacity and sometimes
death, held on the side Of the working.
men. He wrote the opinion in two
eases Estate V. District Court, 1873 MINI.
III, and Nelson v. District Court, 1873
Mimi. 260l in which it was held that
freezing in the course of employment
was an accident within the Minnesota
workingmen compensation act.
In another ease Estate V. District
Court, 129 MINI. soy Justice Dibell
laid down sound and wholesome rule
in holding that the driver Of delivery
wagon, seeking shelter under a tree
during a thunder storm and killed by
lightning, was killed by all accident
within the meaning Of the compensa-
ton act and that his dependents were
entitled to compensation. We recall
while we were in Europe studying work
ingmen 3 compensation our attention
was called to a ruling then made by a
British court in which it was held that
death from lightning was not an acct
dent within the meaning of the law of
that time. Although it occurred dur
ing the course Of employment, it "man-
ifestly did not arise out Of the employ
ment.' So it can be seen that Justice
Dibell was not bound by former deci-
sions against labor in dealing with a
case Of this kind. Indeed it afforded
him an excellent opportunity to show
how his mind runs and the sort of
thinking that engages him which is re-
vcaled in his opinions.
Justice Dibell in another case
(DushaL V. Virginia & r. l.. l.. Co., l76,
n. w. 1927, laid down very statutory
rule of law for the protection of minors
engaged in hazardous occupations when
he held that the defense of contribu~
tory negligence or of assumption of
risk is not open to an employer employ
ing an infant about dangerous machin-
cry in violation Of statute.
In still another case (Seamer V. Great
Northern Ry., l42 Mimi. 376) Justice
Dibell wrote the opinion holding that
the Railway Employees Liability act of
1915, which abolished the fellow SER
want doctrine, the doctrine of compar-
alive negligence and assumption of
isk, and fixed no limit to the amount
OF recovery in the event of death, was
constitutional, and that it applied to
railway men though they were not ex-
posed to the peculiar hazards of rail
| road operation.
We have given but few Of many
opinions written by Homer B. Dibell
as commissioner and justice of the
supreme court. They deal with funda-
mentals in which all workingmen are
vitality interested and with which they
are concerned. Justice Dibell did not
fail them. Can it be wondered, in view
OF the facts herein given, that a num-
Der of Duluth delegates to the state
labor political conv ention wanted to
endorse Justice Dibcll for the supreme
court
The Labor World is not unmindful
OF the fine labor record Of George l..
Seigel as member of the legislature,
but we would be remiss in our duty
it we failed to call public attention to
the favorable attitude to labor of
Homer B. Dibell.
| POLITICIANS UP IN AIR.