XVII. LIABILITY OF EMPLOYERS TO EMPLOYÉS (Continued)

In our last lecture we stated some of the principles relating to the liabilities of employers to their employés; in this lesson the subject will be continued. An employer is bound to use some care or precaution, and if he does not will be responsible for his neglect. One of these is he must employ persons who are fit for the work they are set to do. If an employer in mining should put a man to work by the side of another to mine coal who he knew was not a skilful workman, and, in consequence of this unskilful workman's unskilfulness, other miners were injured, he would be responsible for hiring such a man. Every one will see the justice of this rule.

The employer must also give proper instructions to the person employed whenever he does not understand his duties. If a person is employed to run a laundry machine who does not understand how to work it, and other employés are injured through his ignorance, the employer would be liable. He must, therefore, tell such a person what to do; he has no right to hazard the lives of others by putting any one who has no knowledge of a machine to work without instructing him properly. Again, if a person pretends to be capable, and the employer, believing him, engages him, and it is soon found out that he is not, then it is the duty of the employer either to dismiss him or to give him proper instructions. The rule, however, on this subject is not the same everywhere. It is sometimes said that if an employé continues to work by the side of another after knowing that this other is incompetent, it is his duty to give notice to the employer, and if the employer continues to employ him, to quit. If he does not he assumes the greater risk arising from his knowledge of the incompetency of the other.

It is the duty of the employer to furnish proper appliances for his workmen. He must furnish proper tools and machinery and safe scaffolding, and in every respect must show a reasonable degree of care in all these particulars. But the courts say that he is not obliged to exercise the utmost care, because the employé takes on himself some risk with respect to the tools and machinery he uses. For example, it is said that employers are not obliged to use the latest appliances that are known or appear in the market for the use of their workmen. If an employer has an older one that has been in use for years, and the employés have found out all the dangers attending its use, and a new one appears that is less dangerous to use, the law does not require the employer to throw the older one away and get the other. It is true that in many States within the last few years statutes have been passed by the legislatures requiring employers to be much more careful than they were formerly in protecting their machinery. Many injuries have happened from the use of belting, and the statutes in many cases have stated what must be done in the way of enclosing belts, and of putting screens around machinery, and in various ways of so protecting it that persons will be less liable to suffer. Furthermore, inventors have been very busy in inventing machinery with this end in view. The old-fashioned car-coupler was a very dangerous device, and many a poor fellow has been crushed between cars when trying to couple them. A coupler has been made in which this danger no longer exists; in truth, there has been a great advance in this direction.

An employer must also select suitable materials on which to work. This is a well-known principle. If he does not, then he is responsible for the consequences. In one of the cases a person was injured while erecting a scaffolding from the breaking of a knotty timber. The testimony was that the knot was visible on the surface and if the stick had been examined the defect would have been seen. That seemed a slight defect, surely, but the consequence of using the timber was very serious, and the court rightly held that as this defect could have been seen, had the timber been properly examined, the employer was responsible for the injury to a workman who was injured by the breaking of it.

An employer must also select suitable places for his employés. In one of the cases a court said a master does not warrant his servant's safety. He does, however, agree to adopt and keep proper means with which to carry on the business in which they are employed. Among these is the providing of a suitable place for doing his work without exposure to dangers that do not come within the reasonable scope of his employment. In one of the cases a company stored a quantity of dynamite so near a place where an employé was working that he was killed by its explosion. The court held that it was negligence on the part of the company in requiring its employé to work so near the place where this explosive material was kept.

It is said that if an employé knows that a machine which he is to operate is defective when accepting employment he can recover nothing for the consequences. He assumes the risk whenever he thus engages to work. If the service be especially perilous and yet he clearly understands the nature of it and is injured when performing it, he can get nothing. Doubtless in many of these cases he is paid a larger sum for working under such conditions. Whatever may be the truth in this regard, the principle of law is well understood that, if he has a full knowledge of the risk of his situation and makes no complaint about the nature of the machinery that he is to operate, he accepts the risks, however great they may be. In one of the cases an employé was injured by the kick of a horse belonging to his employer, but he recovered nothing, because he understood the vicious nature of the animal. The horse had kicked others; in fact, its reputation for kicking was well known, and the employé began work with his eyes wide open.

This rule also applies if tools, machinery, etc., become defective and the employé continues to work after the defects are found out. Of course, every one knows that tools wear out and machinery becomes weaker, and that is one of the natural consequences of using them. And so it is regarded as one of the risks ordinarily taken by an employé, and therefore he can get nothing whenever he is injured through the operation of a defective machine caused by the natural wear and tear of time.

EXAMINATION PAPER

Note.—The following questions are given as an indication of the sort of knowledge a student ought to possess after a careful study of the course. The student is advised to write out the answers. Only such answers need be attempted as can be framed from the lessons.