PREFACE. During the half century which has elapsed since Lord Abinger decided Priestly v. Fowler, the courts governed by the common law have been constantly affirming, limiting or applying the rule there laid down, viz: that a master is not liable to one of his servants for an injury occurring through the negligence of a fellow-servant. An experience of several years in editing and annotating decisions for the American and English Railroad Cases had convinced the author that there was an undue and unnecessary confusion among the decided cases; that many of the courts failed very often to grasp the true principle of law underlying the doctrine. The present work is an effort to bring some order out of this chaos, to harmonize the authorities as far as possible, and to lay down certain rules by which all cases can be determined. The author has, he believes, collected and cited every decision, English and American, bearing upon the subject. Owing to the nature of the subject it has been thought advisable to give an abundance of illustration, especially upon points that are much disputed. As the subject is regulated by statutes in a number of states and in England, these acts have been set out in full along with whatever construction has been placed upon them by the courts. Much might be said upon the question whether the common law doctrine of co-service is either just or politic in view of the immense strides which all industries and labor employing enterprises, and especially railways, have made since the doctrine was first enunciated. This, however, is a question solely for the legislature and has been thought to be out of place in a work stating the law as it is. It has, however, been made the subject of several pamphlets by well known writers. The latter portion of the work, the appendix, is devoted to the subject, "Employes' Mutual Insurance Societies." The great usefulness and rapidly increasing popularity of these societies fully warrants the attention given them. The rules and regulations of the best known and most prosperous of these societies are given without abridgment. They will show the methods used in conducting an institution which every large employer of labor ought to introduce among his employes. NORTHPORT, L. I., December, 1889. WILLIAM M. MCKINNEY. PREFACE. TABLE OF CONTENTS. TABLE OF CASES. Masters' liability for servants torts-Respondeat Superior. Fellow-Servant rule not an exception... Origin of Fellow-Servant Rule-Priestley v. Fowler. Hutchinson v. York, New Castle & Berwick R... Murray v. South Carolina R. Co.. Elements Entering into Rule.-Common Employment. Masters' own Torts-Partners and Receivers.... Minors Application of Rule to. Illegal Employment-Sunday Work-Threats. The True Criterion of Fellow Service..... SECTION. 32 Duties of the Master toward his Servant.. 24 Duty to Supply Proper Machinery and Appliances When Rule as to Machinery does not Apply..... Modification of the Rule-Peschel v. Chicago, etc., R. Co..... Injuries caused partly by defective machinery and partly by negli- Duty to keep machinery and appliances in repair.. Illustrations and Application of the Rule.. Doctrine of the English Decisions.. American Cases following English Rule. When American Rule is inapplicable........... Selection and Retention of a Sufficient Number of Competent Ser- vants.... Establishment of Proper Rules and Regulations.. As to Inexperienced Minor Employes.. As to Inexperienced Adult Employes.. Where the Master delegates charge of entire business to one person 37 40 41 42 |