LIABILITY FOR INJURY TO EMPLOYES
The same Committee reported on the bill [H. R. 29] fixing liabilities of employers for injury to employe, recommending its passage with amendments.
Mr. RYAN moved to amend as follows: "In case the injury received by any employe when such employe would be entitled to recover except for carelessness of some co-servant, such carelessness of such co-servant shall be no bar to such recovery by such injured party." He thought this measure a very unjust one. In cases where the employer and employe are equal, there would be no harm in such a rule, but take a Railroad Company in that case: The employe goes to the service of the employer perfectly ignorant of all the duties and particulars pertaining to that business. The contracting parties are not equal, thus putting the employe on an additional responsibility of dligence. The law as it now reads is to the effect that every individual who takes employment from a corporation or individual, becomes thereby not only the page: 111[View Page 111] guarantee of his own carelessness in the performance of his duty, but is put, by the operation of the rule, the guarantee of every one of his co-servants. Where dangerous machinery is in operation, and a person loses an arm or leg in consequence of carelessness of a servant operating a particular machine, he can recover from his employer, notwithstanding the fact that the machine was dangerously arranged. Every individual takes a position with a full knowledge of the responsibilty, subjecting himself to such accidents as may result, but it is an unjust rule that he should become the guarantee of his fellow-servants. It is for this purpose that the amendment is offered.
Mr. GIBSON believed when a man engages himself he assumes certain responsibilities connected with such employment. He said decisions of Courts in cases of gross negligence were that the road becomes liable, and under this amendment it would destroy what is known as the doctrine of contributory labor, and he did not think the amendment ought to prevail. The passing of this amendment will force Railroad Companies and corporations to compel employes to sign deadline warrants.
Mr. COLE--I think the amendment ought to prevail. Take for instance the case of a fireman being injured by the carelessness of the engineer, where it was not in the power of the fireman to guard against the carelessness of the engineer. I think a Railroad Company or any other Company ought to be responsible for injuries caused by the negligence of other employes. Some body must be responsible; the railroad can use the proper care and diligence, a thing which the sub-employe can not do. They are, as the law now stands at the very mercy of these powerful corporations. In reference to the dead-line warrants, I am in favor of enacting a law, making every dead-line warrant null and void.
Mr. ROBERTS said the law did consider them void, and always considered such documents illegal. He said in case of an accident, the person can collect damages under the existing laws, and he did not see the necessity of such legislation.
Mr. CARTER said in running upon railroads there is a risk, and somebody must assume the responsibility of that risk. This amendment changes it so that the Company shall carry the risk in place of the employe.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. COLE moved to amend the bill as follows: "All contracts between an employer and employe by which the rights of the employe under the provisions of this act are waived shall be void."
The amendment was adopted, the Committee report was concurred in, and the bill ordered engrossed.
