Skip to main content
· 8/6/1919

Archibald v. Northern Pacific Railroad

Citations

  • 108 Wash. 97
  • 183 P. 95
  • 1919 Wash. LEXIS 852

Syllabus

<p>Master and Servant (129)—Injury to Employee — Actions — Pleading—Issues, Proof and Variance. The state law and the Federal employers’ liability act having established the same rules in actions against carriers engaged in both interstate and intrastate commerce, it is not a fatal variance, warranting a dismissal of the action, that the complaint, broad enough to cover both laws, pleads a cause of action under the Federal act (U. S. Comp. St. 1916, §§ 8657-8665), while the proof failed to bring plaintiff within the provisions of that act but did establish that he was an employee entitled to protection by the state law, Laws 1917, p. 96, § 19.</p> <p>Same (161)—Assumption of Risks—Fellow Servants—Question for Jury. Plaintiff, a machinist’s helper, instructed to protect his eyes from flying pieces of steel, does not, as a matter of law, assume the risk of negligence of the machinist in continuing the dangerous work while plaintiff, pursuant to instructions, was changing his position and had not reached a place of safety.</p> <p>Statutes (18)—Subject and Title—Carriers—Workmen’s Compensation Act. Section 19 of Laws of 1917, p. 96, excluding employees of carriers engaged in interstate and intrastate commerce from the operation of the industrial insurance act, is germane to and sufficiently included in the title, “Relating to the compensation of injured workmen,” since the title need not be an index to the body of the act or express all details of the subject dealt with.</p> <p>Constitutional Law (103)—Equal Protection of Laws—Workmen’s Compensation Act. Laws of 1917, p. 96, § 19, excluding employees of carriers engaged in interstate and intrastate commerce from the operation of the industrial insurance act and giving them the right to institute actions for personal injuries, does not deny the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th amendment of the Federal Constitution; since it was not the object to take from the states the right to classify the subjects o

Judges: MacKintosh

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.