Skip to main content
· 3/15/1914

Easterling Lumber Co. v. Pierce

Citations

  • 106 Miss. 672
  • 64 So. 461

Syllabus

<p>1. Master and Servant. Abolition of fellow-servant doctrine. Statutes. Constitutionality. Construction. Equal protection of laws. Trial. Constitution 1890, section 193. Laws 1908, chapter 194. Code 1906, section 4056. Laws 1912, chapter 215. Evidence of want of slMl. Esc post facto laves. Damages. Personal injury. Awards.</p> <p>Section 193 of the Constitution of 1890 providing that every employee of any railroad corporation shall have the same rights and remedies for any injuries suffered by him from the act of the corporation or its employees, as is allowed to other persons not employees, where the injury results from the negligence of a superior agent or person having the control of the injured servant, or from a fellow servant in another department of labor, or engaged on another train, and further providing that the legislature may extend the remedies provided to any other class of employees, did not prevent the legislature from making a broader abrogation of tbe fellow-servant rule; therefore Laws of 1908, chapter 194, which, amends Code 1906, section 4066, so as to abolish the fellow-servant rule in actions for injuries to employees of railroads and others operating trains and engines running on tracks, etc., is not invalid.</p> <p>2. Constitutional Law. Construction of statutes.</p> <p>It is the duty of the courts to'construe acts of the legislature so as to uphold their constitutionality and validity, if such can reasonably be done, and any doubt relative thereto will be resolved in favor of the law.</p> <p>3. Constitutional Law. Master and servant. Equal protection of law.</p> <p>Chapter 194, Laws 1898 abolishing the fellow-servant rule in actions for injuries to employees of railroads and others using engines or cars of any kind propelled by the dangerous agencies of steam, electricity, gasoline, etc., and running on tracks, makes a reasonable and sufficient classification, and is not repugnant to the equality clause of the fourteenth amendment of the

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.