Montana labor news., 1938-03-03
SUPREME COURT GIVES
IMPORTANT DECISION
ON LABOR STANDING|
Continued from Page u

AOOAANAAAa10
the other tie but owing to the fact
that the tie was w~atersoaked and
the ground rought, uneven, and
slippery, was forced to carry the tie
on his back and while doing so
slipped and fell with the tie and
sustained injuries which, in the
opinion of doctors, will prevent him
from ever performing hard work
again-that is Gripping him for life.
He was refused a satisfactory settle
ment by the company and started
the long process of attempting to
collect through the courts. The mat
ter finally came on for hearing be-
fore a jury and the company object
ed to the hearing upon the ground
that Leonidas had assumed all of
the risks of his employment and
should have known that by carrying
the tie he would have ruined him
self for life and that they were not
liable unless they had violated an
express statute. This doctrine has
prevailed in a number of cases for
employing companies and has re-
suited in thousands of injured work
men becoming charges on the coun-
ties as a result of injuries but the
District Court and in turn the Su-
preme Court of Montana refused to
longer subscribe to the doctrine and
now, unless the United States SUI
preme Court reverses this decision,
the railroad companies will have to
go to some other state to defraud
their injured employees. The COM
pany next objected to the size of
the judgment, that is $4,000, on the
ground that it was excessive. It was
proved that Leonidas was 49 years
of age, a laborer, having no other
trade or profession OF way of making
a living and would never be able to
work at hard labor. Again the Su-
preme Court came to his rescue and
they now hold that a man of this
class is entitled to at least $4,000 if
crippled for life. It is assumed that
the court knew something of the
cost of recovering a judgment and
this amount seems pitifully small
but it is better than the old average.
The defense of assumption Of risk
and the fellow servant doctrine have
long been the standby of employing
companies. Any man who is work.
ing in a place is assumed to know
the dangers of that place and in ac-
cepting employment, to accept them,
the employer is only required to
refrain from breaking an express
statute and he is safe from liability.
Also if a workman is injured
through the negligence of a fellow
servant, the employer is not liable.
The abuses practiced under these
rules became so great and the bur-
den of caring for injured workmen
became such a burden upon the tax
payers, and the decisions Of the
courts became so conflicting that it
was almost impossible to establish
a claim for personal injuries before
a court and as a result Of this com
~pensation laws were passed in most
states in an attempt to clarity the
matter; however, employing com
panies had a hand in passing these
laws and they sought to retain as
much immunity as was possible to
themselves. This results in a great
deal of confusion in many states in
compensation decisions. Compensa-
ton laws are all drawn to protect
industry, because industry framed
most of them and until the workers
realize that their vital rights are
effected and protect those rights,
this condition will continue.
Montana has long been considered