Lindley Daniel Clark.

The law of the employment of labor online

. (page 12 of 32)
Online LibraryLindley Daniel ClarkThe law of the employment of labor → online text (page 12 of 32)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


employee has a right to presume that his employer has per-
formed his prescribed duty/ Failure to comply with an in-
spector's orders is a penal offense in IdahoJ

The fact that government inspections have been made does
not, however, excuse the employer for negligence in this regard ; '
nor does the fact that the employment of a certified overseer or
mine boss is required by statute serve to clear the employer of

> Philadelphia & R. R. Co. v. Hughes, 119 Pa. 301, 13 Atl. 286.

2 Hall V. Emerson-Stevens Mfg. Co., 94 Me. 445, 47 Atl. 924.

' Mooney v. Connecticut River Lumber Co., 154 Mass. 407, 28 N.E. 352.

* See Chapter 4.

« Andricus" Adm'r. t>. Coal Co., 28 Ky. 704, 90 S.W. 233.

• Foley V. Pioneer Mining, etc., Co., 144 Ala. 178, 40 So. 273.
'Code, sec. 4761.

» O'Connor v. Armour Packing Co., 168 Fed. 241 (C.C.A.). See N.Y., C.L.,
ch. 49, sec. 73.



134 LAW OF THE EMPLOYMENT OF LABOR

responsibility for his negligent conduct.^ The reverse has
been held, however,^ though it cannot be regarded as other than
an erroneous view of the law, and it may be precluded by a
declaration embodied in the statute to the effect that the certi-
fied employee is to be regarded as the personal representative
of the employer.'

Section 65. Ownership of Appliances. — The duty of inspec-
tion above considered assumes the ownership of both appliances
and premises to be in the employer. Where ownership is divided
various distinctions exist, based on the relations of the employer
and the owner of the premises or instrumentality. The most
important of this class of cases are perhaps those in which is
involved the handling by railroad companies of cars belonging
to other companies. Such cars, known in railroading as "for-
eign" cars, although received only temporarily for purposes of
transportation, are as completely identified with the employer's
plant as if the transfer was made by purchase, so that the nature
of the obhgations arising therefrom differs from that existing in
cases where the employer's lack of control over the appUance is
usually held to exempt him from liability.*

In the first place, it may be said that no railway company is
obliged to receive and turn over to be handled by its employees
any defective or dangerous car.^ Every company is under a
legal duty not to expose its employees to dangers arising from

1 Consol. Coal Co. v. Seniger, 179 111. 370, 53 N. E. 733 ; Fulton v. Wilmington
Star Min. Co., 133 Fed. 193 (CCA.) ; Antioch Coal Co. v. Rockey, 169 Ind. 247,
82 N.E. 76.

2 Durkin v. Kingston Coal Co., 171 Pa. 193, 33 Atl. 237 ; Williams v. Thacker
Coal & Coke Co., 44 W. Va. 599, 30 S.E. 107.

' Tenn., Acts 1907, ch. 540.

* Baltimore



Online LibraryLindley Daniel ClarkThe law of the employment of labor → online text (page 12 of 32)