Jeffrey Manufacturing Co. v. Blagg

Citations

• 235 U.S. 571
• 35 S. Ct. 167
• 59 L. Ed. 364
• 1915 U.S. LEXIS 1843

Syllabus

<p>The negligence of a fellow servant is more likely to be a cause of injury in larger establishments than in smaller ones and assumption of risk is different in the former than in the latter. Classifications based on number of employés in a state statute abolishing the fellow servant and assumption of risk defenses under specified conditions are not so arbitrary as to amount to a denial of equal protection of the laws.</p> <p>This court only hears objections to the constitutionality of a statute’ from 'diose who are themselves affected by its alleged unconstitutionality in the feature complained of. Where the employer raises the question of denial of equal protection of the laws, arguments based on alleged discriminations against employés cannot be decisive.</p> <p>The Fourteenth Amendment only takes from the State the right and power to classify subjects of legislation when the attempted classification is so arbitrary and unreasonable that the court can declare it beyond legislative authority. Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U. S. 61.</p> <p>In a general Workmen’s Compensation Act, establishing a state plan that all employers having five or more employés may enter on equal terms, a provision, abolishing the defense of contributory negligence as to such employers who do not come into the plan, is not unconstitutional as denying equal protection of the laws as to them because the defense is not abolished as to those having less than five employés; the classification is not arbitrary and unreasonable, and so held as to such provision in the Workmen’s Compensation Law of Ohio.</p>