Слике страница

hiring away the workman of another under contract with him for service.

Another case of blacklist was decided by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, where it was held that a party placed on the blacklist by associated business men, on the ground that his dealings were inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade, cannot claim damages as for wrongful or malicious interference, where nothing more is done than to give information in accordance with a mutual agreement without coercion (McCarter v. Baltimore Chamber of Commerce (94 Atl. 541).

Where a notice had been posted by railroad officials that they should not call on a certain physician "in any case" of accident, the physician had a proper case for damages against some of the parties defendant by reason of their action, according to the Supreme Court of Montana in the case of Peek v. No. Pac. Ry. Co. (152 Pac. 421).

VI. Employment Offices.

That the State may by statute, on the ground of public policy, prohibit employment agencies from taking fees from persons desiring employment, was decided in Wiseman v. Tanner (221 Fed. 694) by the U. S. Dist. Ct., W. Dist. Wash. This statute did not apply, however, to teachers' agencies (Huntworth v. Tanner, 152 Pac. 523, Sup. Ct. of Wash.)..

The Supreme Court of Michigan upheld the law of that State which provided for license fees graduated according to the population of the cities, and which authorized the commissioner of labor to revoke licenses for violations of law (People v. Brazee, 149 N. W. 1053).

VII. Restriction of Employment.

(a) ALIENS-The constitutionality of the New York statute forbidding the employment of aliens on public works was upheld by the Court of Appeals of that State in People v. Crane (108 N. E. 427), and, on appeal, by the U. S. Supreme Court (in Heim v. McCall, 36 Sup. Ct. 78). On the other hand, the last named court held a statute in Arizona unconstitutional, which extended to private employment, and tended to debar from means of livelihood persons legally within the U. S. (Truax v. Raich, 36 Sup. Ct. 7.). The law had provided that aliens should not be employed in a business employing less than 5 workers, and that in such business not more than 20% of the workers should be aliens. No special public interest necessitating such a law was shown according to the court.



(b) EXAMINATION AND LICENSING That plumber who, contrary to the provisions of law, had secured no license, could not recover for services rendered, was the decision of the Appellate Division of the N. Y. Supreme Court in Gottesman v. Barer (152 N. Y. 128).

VIII. Mines.

(a) WASH ROOMS-The U. S. Supreme Court upheld the Indiana statute requiring the establishment of wash rooms for the use of mine employees under certain_conditions, in Booth v. Indiana (35 Sup. Ct. 618), while the Supreme Court of Kansas upheld a similar statute passed in that State, in State v. Reaser (145 Pac. 838). In both cases the question of the constitutionality of the statute had been contested.

IX. Railroads.

(a) FULL CREWS-An Arkansas statute prescribed "full crews" for railroads of not less than 50 miles in length. In Kansas City Southern Railway Co. v. State (174 S. W. 223), it was held that this law applied to a railroad of more than 50 miles, even though the length of the tracks within the State was less than 50.

(b) SAFETY APPLIANCES--The following were the most important cases dealing with safety appliance laws:

U. S. v. Erie Railroad Co., 35 Supreme Ct., 631 (U. S. Supreme Ct.). U. S. v. Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Co., 35 Supreme Ct., 634 (U. S. Supreme_Ct.). Virginian Ry. Co. v. U. S., 223 Fed. 748 (U. S. Circ. Ct. of App., 4th Dist.). U. S. v. A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 220 Fed. 215 (U. S. Dist. Ct., So. Dist., Calif.). So. Ry. Co. v. Railroad Com. of Indiana, 35 Sup. Ct. 304 (U. S, Sup. Ct.).

They involved questions as to the character of the trains on which brakes should be placed, the definition of railway yards, definition of the word "necessary," etc.

X. Workmen's Compensation.

Seven state courts of last appeal during the year affirmed the constitutionality of workmen's compensation law.

The main points of dispute-outside of the law's unconstitutionality-revolved around the questions as to whether the compensation laws precluded resorting to any other remedy; to what extent the laws could be enforced, when accidents occurred outside of the state and what were the relations between the State and the federal laws. The courts have generally held that the acts have extra-territorial effect. A wide application of State laws has in general been given by the courts, when claimants have been unwilling or unable to sue under Federal laws.


(a) CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATUTE-In the following cases the constitutionality of compensation laws in various states was upheld:

Wheeler v. Contocook Mills Corp., 94 Atl. 265 (Sup. Ct. N. H.); Memphis Cotton Oil Co. v. Tolbert, 171 S. W. 309 (Ct. of Civ. App. of Texas); Middleton v. Texas Power & Light Co., 178 S. W. 956 (Ct. of Civ. App. of Texas); Mackin v. Detroit-Timkin Axle Co. 153 N. W. 49 (Sup. Ct. of Mich.); Porter v. Hopkins, 109 N. E. 629 (Sup. Ct. of Ohio); Jensen v. So. Pac., 109 N. E. 600 (Ct. of App. of N. Y.); Hunter v. Colfax Consolidated Coal Co., 154 N. W. 1037 (Sup. Ct. of Iowa); Western Indemnity Co. v. Pillsbury, 151 Pac. 398 (Sup. Ct. of Calif.).

(b) APPLICABILITY OF STATUTE-The one case under this division coming before the Supreme Court of the U. S. was the Washington case (No. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Meese, 36 Sup. Ct. 223), in which the court upheld the exclusiveness of the compensation law of Washington as a remedy for an injury to an employee, even when that injury was due to the negligence of third parties.

The distinction between an employee and an independent contractor was noted in the cases of In re Rheinwald (153 N. Y. Supp. 598); In re Powley (154 N. Y. Supp. 426) and State ex rel Virginia & Rainy Lake Co. v. Dist. Ct. (150 N. W. 211 Sup. Ct. of Minn.).

Under the Michigan statute, it was held that police officers were not employees, but officers of the city, and therefore outside of the provisions of the law (Blynn v. City of Pontiac, 151 N. W. 681). In Foth v. Macomber & Whyte Rope Co. (154 N. W. 369), a minor employed unlawfully in a hazardous occupation was permitted to recover under the Wisconsin law. In Rongo v. R. Waddington & Sons (94 Atl. 408), a New Jersey case, the original employer was held responsible for the injuries incurred by a driver hired out by his employer to another person, and receiving injuries during such employment.

In a New York case, false statements concerning the marital conditions of the late employee, who died from injuries while in defendant's employ, was held not to bar his widow from recovering under the act (Kenny v. Union Ry. Co. (152 N. Y. Supp. 117).

(c) RELATION OF STATE TO FEDERAL LAWSDiverse decisions have been rendered during the year on the relation between the State compensation laws and the Federal statutes. Cases involving questions of admiralty were decided in New York, Connecticut and Washington. In the. first two states, it was declared that an injured person, who

was formerly allowed to proceed at his option either in admiralty or under the common law, might make a claim under the compensation law as a substitute for the common law. In Washington the reverse ruling was given. The cases were respectively: In re Walker (109 N. E. 604); Kennerson v. Thames Towboat Co. (94 Atl. 372); State ex rel Jarvis v. Daggett (151 Pac. 648).

The same diversity appeared in the cases of interstate employees injured without any negligence on the part of the employer and therefore not entitled to sue under the Federal law. In Illinois a suit under the State compensation law was prohibited (Staley v. Ill. Central Railroad Co. 109 N. E. 342). In New York and New Jersey suits were allowed (Winfield v. N. Y. C. and H. R. R. R. Co.. 153 N. Y. Supp. 499; Rounsaville v. Central Railroad Co., 94 Atl. 392). State statutes were held to apply rather than Federal statutes, in Tensen v. So. Pac. Co. (109 N. E. 600, N. Y.); Hammill v. Penn. Co. (94 Atl. 313 N. J.): Okrzsezs v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co. (155 N. Y. Supp. 919); Fairchild v. Penn. R. R. Co. (155 N. Y. Supp. 751).

(d) EXTRA TERRITORIALITY OF STATUTE-In several of the states it was held that the compensation law of the State in which the hiring is done still governs when workmen in the performance of their duties go outside the State. This view was taken in the New York case of Post v. Burger & Gohlke (111 N. E. 351); in the Connecticut case of Kennerson v. Thames Towboat Co. and the New Jersey case of Rounsaville v. Central R. R. Co. Another important New Jersey case was that of W. Jersey Trust Co. v. Phil. & Reading Ry. Co. (95 Atl. 756), where recovery under the act was had by a brakeman engaged in interstate commerce, despite the fact that the contract was made in another jurisdiction than that in which the accident occurred: that negligence was in evidence and that the brakeman and widow had signed a release.


(e) HAZARDOUS EMPLOYMENTS-The New York law applies only to hazardous employments. What constitutes employment in this sense has been dealt with in several Those engaged in certain plate glass industries, in running elevators, in wholesale drug stores and retail butcher shops, were included in the law, while others engaged as janitors, as hotel assistants, as harvesters of ice and as shippers in a wholesale produce establishment were excluded.

Many other important decisions were rendered by the various courts under the general divisions of "proximate cause," "evidence," "course of employment," "benefits," "disability," "dependency," "wilful misconduct" and "procedure.” Several cases were also decided under the general title of "Employers' Liability Insurance."

XI. Relief Associations.

That passage of the Federal liability statute had invalidated the contract of a member of a railway relief department, and that a claimant who had recovered in a suit for damages could not therefore receive further benefits from this department in accordance with the contract made, was the decision of the Supreme Court of Indiana in the case of the Baltimore and Ohio R. R. v. Miller (107 N. E. 545). In the other Indiana case, a contributor to a relief fund maintained in violation of a State statute was permitted to recover from the fund the amount of his contribution thereto, he having left the employment of the company. (B. & O. S. W. R. R. Co. v. Hagan, 109 N. E. 194.).

XII. Liability of Employers for Injuries to Employees. Scores of cases have been decided under this heading, the most important of them involving the application of the Federal liability law.


The foregoing excerpts have been taken from the Bulletin of the U. S. Department of Labor Statistics, entitled: "Decisions of Courts Affecting Labor, 1915." The survey given in this Bulletin is an admirable compilation and can be obtained on application to the Bureau in Washington. The decisions are taken chiefly from the U. S. Courts and the courts of last resort in the various States, although they include a few from some of the subordinate courts, notably in the State of New York. The citations are not meant to be exhaustive, but merely indicative of the more important cases. If the reader is desirous of studying the general law on the subjects broached, he may be referred to other bulletins published by the Labor Bureau, to Clark's "The Law of the Employment of Labor," Groat's "Attitude of American Courts in Labor Cases," Laidler's "Boycotts and the Labor Struggle" and Martin's "Treatise on the Law of Labor Unions."

« ПретходнаНастави »