The American Reports (Volume 16); Containing All Decisions of General Interest Decided in the Courts of Last Resort of the Several States with Notes and References (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1876. Excerpt: ... Lawler v. Androscoggin Railroad Co. a series of decisions, beginning with Priestly v. Fowler, 3 M. & W. 1, and ending with Morgan v. Vale of Neath Railway, Law Rep, 1 Q. B. 148, that a servant, when he engages to serve a master, undertakes, as between himself and his master, to run all the ordinary risks of the service, including the negligence of his fellow-servants." This is pretty universally recognized as law in the decisions of the courts of the different States in this country. Nor is the law held differently when the employee causing the injury is engaged in a different department of the same general service, or exercising a higher grade of authority. In Feltham v. England, Law Rep., 2 Q. B. 33, it was argued that the foreman, by whose negligence the injury occurred, should be deemed as the "alter ego " of the master and not as the fellow-servant of the party injured, but the court held otherwise. "We think," remarks Mellob, J., "that the foreman or manager was not, in the sense contended for, the representative of the master. The master still retained the control of the establishment, and there was nothing to show that the manager or foreman was other than a fellow-servant of the plaintiff, although he was a servant having greater authority. As was said by Willes, J., in Gallagher v. Piper, 33 L J., U. B. 335, 'a foreman is a servant as much as the other servants whose work he superintends.'" This was held to be the law of this State, in Beaulieu v. Portland Co., 48 Me. 295; and in Massachusetts, in Oilshannon v. Stony Brook R. R., 10 Cush. 228; in Vermont, in Htird, adm., v. V. 0. R. R. Co., 32 Vt 473. The master is liable for the consequences of negligence in the selection of his servants. The gist of the action is negligence. It is the duty of ...