El Reno Daily American. (El Reno, Okla.), Vol. 15, No. 200, Ed. 1 Wednesday, March 4, 1908 Page: 2 of 8
This newspaper is part of the collection entitled: Oklahoma Digital Newspaper Program and was provided to The Gateway to Oklahoma History by the Oklahoma Historical Society.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
SSr
-g-
KL Rim DAILY ABODUOAK. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 1908.
§
V/f)er) will you bu^ tb&t
pew G)prir)g wre\p?
G)unbonr>et
Rabies.
>■ nii
Inevitable. It Is no; 23 safe to mine accident happened to an employee by H 1 1 M l'
coal, make ste I rails or manufacture)"1 dlr=ct orders of a superior, the T
dvnamlte as it'is to practice law or employer was niv liable because the <•
dig po atoes. If a man chooses one sup> ' was ht'ld to be 11 telll>w ser" ;;
rather than the other, tin danger -,,vu,lt °f 'h6 Injured man. rhv ( asej
bla own lookout. Furthermore, the Act, however, has done away with
law takes it for grant d that for the
this most unreasonable feature of the • •
bVTf—■
| extra risk assumed In cer.aln dan-' fellow servant rule by putting fore- ..
|geroue occupations, there Is sufficient men, bosses and super.ntendents In- |k
I compensation in the greater reward |10 'le c'ass °' vice principals for
stipulated for in this same contract1 whose acts the employer Is responsl- ..
for h'.re. Of course, it is not merely "le. thereby taking them out of the ;;
the risk of accidents happening in class of fellow-servants, lltit It still
spite of every safety precaution and leave* the ■employee assuming the ..
protection, which the employee as-!risk ot the carelessness or incompf- X
sulfaes; he assumes the risk of the tence of all mere employees like him-
work as R is ordii.:arily carried on.1 self, whether they are working shoul-
For Instance, the handle of a bucket to shoulder with him or a thou- ..
hauling 4,000 pounds of Iron out of sand miles away. j,,
t.he holil of a vessel, pull3 out, letting \ These three modifications of the ' [
the whole mass of irou fall on a general law of negligence are often
workman in the hold. On this buck-(spoken of as the "assumption of risk
et which had be> n used for eighteen rule" and the "fellow-servatot rule;"u!
years, the hamdle was merely clamp-1 but It sems a little more logical -to ' * |
ed on; while in newer buckets, the put them all in one group as desig-
nating what is meant by the implied
"fl
^ou &.re Qot $019$ to crowd tl?rou$!? tl?is
without $ettl9$ a. Qew wr&p &
pew st^Iislp outfit for Carter, we ^ou?
If you corrje to us we stykll try Qot to
"rtvp you 09 tl?e price.
Mature puts 09 9ew clothes 19 <f>pri9§,
&o will you, v/09 t you?
Ask us to s!?ow you sorrje. of ttyese
tl?l9<35.
(Mohhy Spring Sti:ts SIS.00 to S40.00.
Stylish Separate Jichsts $5.00 ta
SI 2.00.
Sivell Princess si!k dresses S20.00 to
S25.SJO
We respectfuljy i9vite you to conje to
our store.
Cordially
JW. E. FRYBERGER
THE LAW AND IN-
JURED WORKMAN
How Employer's Liability Works
Out in Greatest Industrial
in Union
()■ Ids v\ Ik tell aii- ill favor of the em-
ployer—llefcnccs \ihiili (late buck
to ly customs In tin* industry
ami wliicli often have no lieurliig
upon hoi king conditions In big
|ircsei:t day establishment*—What
is nxvuit by "Assumption of risk,"
"Kell<>w servant doctrine," "Con-
tributory negligence," "Itunlen of
proof" witnesses—Fven failure ol
tlio o|H-rator to obey the state la-
in,r laws may enter into the rea-
Kons urged for not awarding dam-
ages to an injured worker.
CRYSTAL EASTMAN
(Copyright 11>0S, Charities and
Commons, New York.)
states." Au he goes on to express
his confidence that the states with
"this clear definition of responsibili-
ty" before them "will undoubtedly
give to the performance of their du-
ty wl:h 11 their field the consideration
the importance of the subject d -
niands." The time has come then
for us to find out, by a study of the
statutes and the more recen't deci-
si ns, just how the dlff rent states
stand on tills question; to determine
if posible, how far an employer is
now liable for injuri1 s to his em-
ployees la he course of their work.
It s in this connection that the fal-
lowing stud) of the employer's lin-
billty law of Pennsylvania is offered.
We must begin with a word or two
about 111.1 law of negligence In per-
sonal injury cases generally. If one
person Injures another unl entlon-
ally, but through want of due care
(and due care Is what the average
man would fcave us d In similar c r-
cumstanc s), he Is civilly liable to
the the Injured person. (His want
of care can be so extreme as to
amount to criminal negligence and
then, of course, he is criminally
liable also.) This ? ems a natural
and fair adjustment of burdens.
I When one s unduly careless and
Court hurts another, ho should make up
for ll In so far as nidney can. There
ure two other matters of law to no-
tice with regard to negligence In
general. Contributory negligence on
the part of the Injured person de-
f als recovery. Furthermore, as a
. gen. ral rule of negllgi ice, and this
Is Important to bear in mind, a nias-
for the negligence
handles are forged on. But since
the plaintiff cannot show that 'the old
and less safe buckets are still in com-
mon use, he oannot hold his employ-
er liable for his injury; it is an ord-
inary risk of his employment that
he has suffered from and he took the
risk. (McGeegan and Hughes 15
Dist. 249).
(2) He assumes all extra-ordinary
risks, as those arising from long-con-
tinued defects in machinery, and ev-
en those arising from such negli-
gence of the employer as amounts
to a violation of statute, If he knew
or could reasonably have been expect-
ed to have known of 'the danger, and
continued working (107 Pa. 1).
For Instance, a s. ventecn year old
girl, working in a laundry, called the
attention of a foreman to a loose
assumption of risk in the servant's
contract of hire.
Now, there is another way of stat-
ing the liability relation between em-
ployer and employee. It is oftetm said
that the employer has three absolute
duties to perform: (1) to provide a
reasonably safe place to work; (2)
reasonably competent fellow em-
ployees; (3) Instructions when rea-
| sonably necessary. But when one
I finds that the standard of perform-
! ance in all these duties is commooi us-
| age; and that they are further hedg-
| ed about by the three defences we
| have just discussed, it is clear this
I is merely a positive statement of
| what has here been staved negatlve-
i ly.
We have seen that the three-fold
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
The GLOBE STORE will move
Monday to new location—
MARKS-HIGGINS OLD STAND,
and will be closed till further
notice :: :: :: ::
The BOSTON STORE
♦H' II 1 1 1 1 1 111 I H-
board in front of the rolls where she assumption of risk furnishes the em-
was working. She said It Interfered l'l°.ver three possible lines of defenc
with her work, but made no defin e
complaint with regard to its danger,
alnd she went oil working there.
Nothing was done. Finally, while she
cleaning the machine, the lo
to an action for damages. It must
be remembered 'that there is still an-
other defence open to him-—contribu-
tory negligence. The employer can
escape penalty of Ms own negligence
-K-H-H-H-H'1"H"H
:: New Location 118 North Bickford Avenue J
MERCHANTS CAFE
Bannister & Brechter, Props.
OPEN DAY AND NIGHT
Regular Meals. Short Orders at All lluurs
boara flew up and threw her hands " 'le ca" show that the employee bj .,
The
The recent U. S. Supreme
ruling, and the President's message
have made employer's liability a
subjeut for national discussion. This
preliminary study of the law of mas-
ter and servant ill Pennsylvania was
made 'by a number of the slaff of
the P ttsburg Survey, which Is tin
dertakiug a detailed Investigation ns
. , , „ ... t,. (or is responsibl
to where the economic burd 11 or in- 1
duatrial accidie* actually falls— of h s aroint while engaged In the
how far it is borne by damages, ben- n,aslt 1 s
ellis, relief furtde, Insurance, etc.. and Now, In he application of this gen-
ii must be shouldered by era I law n a..i employer's liability
men and the widows and ' injuries to 111*
if those killed. This accl- '"g from (lie work that he Is carry
legation In turn, is part of lug on, we shall s e that there ar
how far
d -abl d
children
dent Invi
a larger
ef onomic
ea i nlng
w ird In
up
betweei. the rolls where they were
crushe 1. She could no:.recover be-
cause she had assumed the risk of a
condition which she ought to have
known was dal.igerous. (Hendersm
v. Hogentagler, ! Dauph. 246). Or
again, a man working near a defec-
tive crane 'is injured 'by its breaking.
Tli Te is 110 evidence that he knew of
the defect, but it had been obvious
for three moini hs; "he ought to have
known of t," Lindberg v. National
Tube Comapny 213 Pa. 545). In
this case as in many, we may see
how the very obviousness of the de-
fect, which, It seems, shouM lix the
responsibility on the employer is a
means of his avoiding responsibility.
(3) Filnally, the employee as-
sumes the r sk of all dangers due to
carelessness, incompetent or ignor-
ant fellnv. employees. (The new
P nnsylvanla Act of 1907 with re-
gard to this rule will be not d later).
This is perhaps the moat vital dis-
tinct in between the gaaeral law of
negligence and the law ,>r n.gllgence
as bet wen master and servant. "A
matter Is responsible for the tiegl -
gene of Ills servair.t In cour of em-
ployment without regard for their
reputation >••>•. ; In* caso of fellow-
servants." (77 Pa. 2s:l). As be-
tween master and s rvant, the duty
of th. master is merely to take due
care In employing servants of ordin-
ary skill and carefulness. To illus-
tra e: Suppose a yard mast r In
New York puts a car of dynamite at
the end of a tra 11 of cars Instead of
in the middle as the rul of the com-
pany would require, and because of
this carelessness, the dynamite car
when many miles from New York,
me ts w i h a collision and Is blown
up. A cow browsing in a field near
the track anld a station agent keep-
ing his lonely post In a small coun-
try station next to the field, are both
blown :o pieces. Now the farmer
can recover the loss of Ills cow; but
can the station agent's widow recov-
er for the loss of her husba ;d ' No,
his own negligent act or omission
contributed to his Injury. This we
have se n is true with regard ;o the X
law of negligence in general. But ] |
In 'hese master and servant cases the
del' use of contributory negligenc !,al-T< >
though perhaps theoretically reason- !!
able, works hardship oftener than it "
works justice. Recklessness is coin • •
mon among workmen,especially those
doing dangerous work. For instance,1 \ \
brakemen will r de 011 the pilot of an
engine unnecessarily, or a member of
the track gang who is ordered by his
foremam to cross the tracks will go j' |
bet wen the cars instead of around."
them. One could multiply instances !!
of [his endlessly. I think that what "
is called "carelessness" among work
ing men could be divided Into three,"
kinds. Some of t is boyish dare-dev-
iltry; some ot it, especially in th'
case of these dumb bewildered for-
eigners, is stupidity and awkward-
kln'd of fredom and fearl ssn-ss; comotive engineer with a strong
which goes with dangerous w.rk and! un,on back of hln]i to the new,
i
ANNOUNCEMENT
The Commercial Bank of
El Reno tlesires to announce
that all its tleposits are now
GUARANTEED by the de-
positors Guaranty Fund of
THE STA TEOF OKLAHOMA.
i landed "Hunkie," tongue-tied and
bewilderud, Is on an equal footljig
with United States Steel Corporation.
Is necessary to Imagine a s ruc-
tural irou worker who was "careful
of himself." How long would he hold
his job?
There Is one important
the law, perhaps the most
in (lie actual worki. gof it, which lias!!ra°t of h re, th.- law assumes that I,,,
only been mentioned In passing as workman is as free to adopt or
in-roads upon the "assui:
risk rule," denying its
where the injury has rest
the violation of a statui 1
states have weakened tie
tory negligence" delete e
f itnrp nf This, it must be admitted, is a purfe- , ,
01 . ducing a principe of •
imnnrtnnt O theoretical equality. In the con-'
important, negligence" in awardin
tion of
peratiou
ed fro 111
A few
ontribu-
y Intro-
parative
yet. In all these cas- s of negligence,
the burden of proof is on the plain
ft'. It Is not enough that the
dance which he offers should
refuse a job as the corporation is to
take him or drop him. In the mat-
vj_ ter of rhe release, the law assumes
l,e ! that the stricken and terrified widow
equally consistent with negligence:0"' an Ignorant laboring man is in a
011 lb part of the employer, and with position of equal understanding and
no negligence. In other words, he enlightenment as to the respective
must make out a pretty good case of 1 interests of the parlies as is the
negligence to begin with. If he falls 1 hardened claim agent employed by
in (his, he Is non-suited. One hears tllp corporation. And with regard
011 * very side that if you can get a:10 11141 burden of proof, the law as-
case of this kind before the jury, 18limes tliut the common laborer cam
sa> the case of an injured man or
just
awarding damages.
Thus we should find In some state a
precedent for strengthen Ing the em-
ployer's liability along almost every
line; and it 'is not unreasonable to
hope that thorough going reform of
the law can be accomplish d in this
way.
The other way Is to depart alto-
gether from the theory of liability
for negligence; to take the whole
matter out of the courts; to require
each employer to compens , e hit em-
ployes injured in the coui , of then-
work according to an established un-
easily obtain witnesses to
widow and children against a corpo-1 swear to his employer's negligence, Uorm rate' re8ardlts.s of negligence
rat on, the jury is likely to be with [88 his employer can obtain witnesses , ce^7 ®^e "le a''l"'ent resulted
y .11. Perhaps this is iii a m asure to BWenr to hls (the plaintiff's) con- ,"°® the wilful misconduct of the In-
tri: ; but the difficulty is In getting "'hulory negligence. "All persons
the case to the jury. If It Is true jara PQ"01 before the law," and the
that the jury favors the working corl)orat!on w th its masterfully con-
beeause he w as a fellow servant of1 man, it Is equally true that the judge | c6n'trated power Is but a "person."
the man w hose mistake or careless-. favors the corporation, and It Is the The law is behindhand and the law
11 ss caused the accident, and yet he judge that can k p the case from "miters have ben stupid and 'blind;
tnployee, result- ;,.|(| |lt) more t0 j0 w|ti, that fellow-■ going to the Jury by a non-suit. j their minds have be 11 so long acctiS'
| servant's act than had the farmer's
I cow. The question of who are fel-llaw Itself
Jured man). This plan, which Is
what Roosevelt advocates, has been
in operation in Englaind since 1807
and has been adopted In some form
In nearly all of the countries of
, Western Europe. It is based on the
principle that each industry should
inquiry lis
conditions of
populai nov
the Pittsburg i
the
rial and some rather material modifications ,inv servants Is naturalh
In addit on to these features of the!tom*"1 to old ldtaa of theoretical 1,e*[' own ( ost3 ln human life as
law Itself, which unduly favor the' l'1ua,lt.v and freedom of contract wel1 as in wear and tear on inachln-
All theso modlfloations
th nk, 011 one mistaken
of
mount importance in applying
rule of the law.
para-1employer, it must be reeognlz d that lllal they have llot become aware of ®""5' Aud H 18 furlher argued that
this In the a-'ual working out of theim0llem conditions. t'^e employers would Insure against
I We must turn then from abstract 1 8 rS ,, ""f wo"'tl 'ncltvde this In-
ises, tlier are further es- theories and endeavor to make our urnnf,e 1r03' production, so
pursuit of the same purpose are fel-lsential Inequalities. First, there U! employer's liability law fit industry
low servan s whether the? work aide' the long delay In bring ng the case "s carried on today. With this new
the wage- and changes.
going for- "re based. 1 io.uk, 011 one iuisuikcii 1.„ie 0| he law. In general, all who [course of justice In these master
itrlct under '• 1 "" 1 he one theory which nieana Wlir|, f0r „ c,,n,man • niployer and 111 servlint cases, ther
in Committee almost nothing in practice. The law
Commons." hoi1 In that the employer is in a dlIT-1
e National Public
"Chariius and TI |
The r<-'ent decision of the Supreme eient telation to hi> employoes -j by le or miles apart. For Instance,Ito trtal, which means bread and 'but- j poflnt of view, there are two ways
"irt dedai'lng the Federal Dmploy- '.mse the> liuve mad a contract w ''j ]>• ikemeu, cou'luctors, <ngl 1 ers and 1 r t i the employe, and a mere post- of going at It. We ran build up the
s Liabillt: Act of 1900 unconsti- which retrain el nients an' (]remen t|lt, same or different ponement of annoyance to the em- iaw as it stauds by statute,—^taking
oual se 111s to suggest that no Implied. I lie law assumes that the(trains of one road are fellow ser-'ployer. Again, there ts the matter away, one by one, the unjustifiable
vutrts. Train crews, track hands and: of obtaining witnesses. The plain- defenses which now protect the eiu-
ni.itter iiow d !• minedly progress- ,w0 parties are free aud 011 an equal
ivt our national executive may be, 1" making this contract, it
and no ma'ter how willing Congress 's the contract of litre. The servant
may be to fall In line with him, we not obliged to work for the master,
must look to the state for any real ('i,n take work or leave It as he
advance along this line President likes; but if he takes the work, he
Roosevelt himself I11 his vigorous makes a contract In which the Inw
message of February 1, which may implies that h<6 assumes certain risks,
have beeu "inspired by this decision,1 (1) He assumes the risk of all or-
innkes It clear that when an ade- Unary damgers of the employment,
quate notional law has covered the An employer does not usure the lives
field of Interstate employment, "the and lltnlm of his employe s. In many
Held of Intra-state employment will modern Industries there are accl-
be left to the action of tho several dents which, humanly speaking, are
car repairers are fellow servants.
Car lusivectors and conductors, ;a-
tlon master and engineer have been
considered fellow servants. A girl In
a tailoring department of a store has
been held to be a fellow servant of a
boy running an elevator in the store.
And flirtli r, until the "Igulng of the
Casey Act, June 10, 1907, foremen,
bo <es and even superintendents, wore
as a rule considered f llow servants
of the men under thlr control or in
th same employ. Even though an
tiff's witnesses must almost always
be his foremen and fellow workmen
—employes of the same company.
In short, It is lo the economic Inter-
est of th witnessed necessary to
prove the plaintiff's case to stand by
tho defendant, their employer.
Almost every element of 11 nfallr-
Hess I11 this law arises, I think, from
the same misconception; I.e., tha the
two parties are on nin> equal footing.
In the eyes of the law, every work-
ing man from the plain American lo-
that ultimately the burden of each
accident would be distributed among
tho whole body of consumers Instead
of falling, as It usually does now, on
the Individual worker and his fam-
ily.
j This secon'd plan involves a funda-
pluyer. This would be but a contln- nlt>ntal departure from our present
Ulttion of the course already begun 'Employers llabllty law. But be-
lli almost every state In the unjpm. e*USL> ''1 Is reasonable, and because
The effect of most of the employer's '' °®er8 a just, and from the point
liability statutes so far have been to °' v'ow °f society, an economical
limit the operation of the fellow ser- method of distributing these great
vant rule. Some stales have abol-!v"a' 'osses of Industry, it has won
Ishe-d it with regard to railroads,; iU'('ent supporters among both em-
some, like Pennsylvania, have taken , l''°>'ei's and employes.
those in authority out of the class of —
fellow servants. One state, Colora- Have you seen those beautiful 5
do, has abolished the rule altogether. a"d 10 acre tracts In Vernoji
Another group of statutes has made Heights? 130-tf.
I
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
El Reno Daily American. (El Reno, Okla.), Vol. 15, No. 200, Ed. 1 Wednesday, March 4, 1908, newspaper, March 4, 1908; El Reno, Oklahoma. (https://gateway.okhistory.org/ark:/67531/metadc165644/m1/2/: accessed March 19, 2024), The Gateway to Oklahoma History, https://gateway.okhistory.org; crediting Oklahoma Historical Society.