Government Intervenes in Landmark Labor Rights Case
For the first time, the federal government supports a worker's challenge to the 'fellow servant' rule, a legal doctrine that historically shielded railroads from liability for employee injuries.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
The La Follette 'Fellow servant law' case, now under submission to the supreme court of the United States on the question of its constitutionality, possesses added interest due to the attitude of the government toward it. It will be recalled that this act abolishes the common law rule that the negligence of one fellow servant prevents another from recovering, and also abolishes the common law rule as to contributory negligence, where the negligence of the employee was slight and that of the employer gross. The contention of the validity of this act arises in damage suits between injured employees, or their legal representatives in case of death, and the railroads. The fact that the president has made the validity of this act a governmental affair by directing the attorney general to appear and defend its validity marks a great advance. It recognizes that the safety of the employees of interstate transportation companies is a matter of general concern in which the government has a legitimate interest. It is also interesting to note that while judges Evans and McCall, of Kentucky and Tennessee respectively, have held the law to be unconstitutional, four other federal judges have held the law to be valid—Judge Hanford in the state of Washington, Judge Trieber in Arkansas, Judge Morris in Minnesota, and Judge Spear in Pennsylvania.
“It recognizes that the safety of the employees of interstate transportation companies is a matter of general concern in which the government has a legitimate interest.”
This 1907 legal struggle echoes modern-day debates over worker protections and the 'gig economy' where platforms try to avoid liability by classifying workers as independent contractors. The shift from holding workers responsible for their own safety to requiring employers to ensure a safe environment remains a foundational, ongoing civic argument.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.