Слике страница

or less, and over five-sixths (81.6) not more than ten days. This is shown in the following table:

[blocks in formation]

The number of strikes, strikers, and working days lost for the period are shown, by results, in the following table:


[blocks in formation]

A little over one-fourth of the strikes resulted favorably to the employees, about one-fifth in compromises, and about one-half in favor of the employers. In case of the other strikes the results were not reported.

The table following shows the results of strikes, for strikes and strikers, for each year from 1895 to 1904:

[blocks in formation]


1895 TO 1904--Concluded.

[blocks in formation]

In the following table the number and per cent of strikes which succeeded, succeeded partly, and failed are shown for the period, by causes:

[blocks in formation]

Combining the strikes that succeeded with those that succeeded partly, it appears that strikes in resistance to lower wages and longer hours resulted more favorably to employees than those for higher wages and shorter hours.

The report also contains data as to disputes, accompanied by extraordinary measures and occurrences. Since the Russian factory law of 1886 requires two weeks' notice by either party for a dissolution of the contract of employment, most strikes lasting fewer than fourteen days do not constitute a dissolution of a labor contract, and hence do not result in dismissal of the strikers. Dismissals of part of the employees occurred in 190 cases and dismissals of all the workers in 137 cases.

Arrests and deportations of strikers to their homes (the legal residence of factory workers being usually some village) took place in 269 cases, destruction of property took place in 71 cases, and the military forces were called out in 340 cases. Both destruction of property and use of the military forces occurred frequently during the strikes of 1903. The conflicts were most numerous in the metal industry and in the oil industry of the Caucasus.

The following table shows the number of strikes that were accompanied by extraordinary measures and occurrences:


BY YEARS, 1895 TO 1904,

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]


[Except in cases of special interest, the decisions here presented are restricted to those rendered by the Federal courts and the higher courts of the States and Territories. Only material portions of such decisions are reproduced, introductory and explanatory matter being given in the words of the editor. Decisions under statute law are indexed under the proper headings in the cumulative index, page 1037 et seq.]


EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY, SUPERINTENDENT ACTING AS LABORERCONTINUING DUTY-PARENTS' RIGHT TO SUE FOR Loss of Minor's SERVICESJordan v. New England Structural ('ompany, Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, 83 Northeastern Reporter, page 332.—There were two cases under this title before the court on appeal from the superior court of Suffolk County. A minor, T. F. Jordan, was suing by his next friend to recover damages for injuries received while in the employment of the company, and his father was suing for loss of services. Judgment was for the plaintiffs in both cases in the court below. On appeal, however, it was held that the “ Fellow-servant law," under which alone the action could be brought, did not give the father a right to sue. The judgment in behalf of the son was affirmed.

The facts appear in the opinion, which was delivered by Judge Knowlton and is in the main as follows:

In the defendant's shop there was a large crane, estimated to weigh about 20 tons, which passed in and out upon an iron track nearly 20 feet above the ground, which track was supported by girders. The track and girders were taken down and replaced by new ones. While the work was going on and before the old track was entirely removed, the crane ran in and out over that part which was in position, and as soon as the new track was in place and safely supported it began to run in and out occasionally over that. The minor plaintiff was an iron worker. IIe was sent with another man to put in a bracket underneath the girder, between the pillars that supported it, and in doing the work he stood upon

narrow piece of iron and steadied himself by taking hold of the track above the girder with one hand. His companion went away temporarily, and John Flynn, a foreman who directed the work, came up to take his place, standing in a similar way, with one of his hands holding the rail of the track. The crane came along over the track and cut off the ends of two of the plaintiff's fingers.

There was ample evidence to warrant a finding that Flynn was a superintendent within the meaning of the statute. The jury might well find that it was a part of his duty to warn workmen, who were in exposed positions of the coming of the crane, if they were where they would not be likely to see it. There was testimony that he had given such warnings repeatedly during the progress of the work. It appeared that the place was very noisy, and that the plaintiff could not hear nor see the approach of the crane while he was working below the girder. His back was towards the crane as it approached, while the superintendent was facing it. There was testimony that the superintendent could have seen the crane as it was coming, although this was disputed. The superintendent was not relieved from the obligation to use due care for the safety of the employees by his taking the place of the plaintiff's companion, temporarily, to assist in the work of putting in the bracket. It was a question for the jury whether the superintendent was negligent in failing to discover the approach of the crane and to warn the plaintiff of his danger. It was also a question for the jury whether the plaintiff was in the exercise of due care. In this case the defendant's exceptions must be overruled.

The claim of the father presents a different question. This, like the other, is brought under the employer's liability act, and no negligence is charged except that of the superintendent. At common law neither of the plaintiffs could recover, as the only negligence complained of was that of a fellow-servant. The employer's liability act cannot be availed of by the father to recover for loss of service or for expenses, inasmuch as this statute gives a right of action only to the employee or his legal representatives, or, if he is instantly killed or dies without conscious suffering, to his widow or next of kin. (Rev. Laws, c. 106, secs. 71-73.) The employee or his legal representatives shall

have the same rights to compensation and of action against the employer as if he had not been an employee," etc. If he is a minor, this enlargement of his rights at common law does not extend to his father, suing in his own right.

EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY-SUPERINTENDENT ACTING AS LABORERQUESTION FOR JURY-Gallagher v. Newman, Court of Appeals of New York, 83 Northeastern Reporter, page 480.-Annie Gallagher sued to recover damages for the death of her husband, caused, as alleged, by the negligence of one Brady, who was Newman's foreman. Judgment was for the plaintiff in the trial court and the appellate division of the supreme court, but was reversed on further appeal and a new trial ordered.

It appears that the foreman called on the deceased and a fellowworkman to assist in replacing a belt that had slipped from its place, and that while they were so employed, Brady, with the apparent purpose of furthering the undertaking, threw on the power at such time as to inflict the injuries that caused Gallagher's death. The instructions by the trial judge were held not to have properly submitted to

« ПретходнаНастави »