Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 2.djvu/248

 230

HARVARD LA W REVIEW.

question of time when the old harshness of the law in regard to employees will be done away with. The tendency of the American law is to interpret the doctrine of common employment more lib- erally in their favor. Great Britain and Massachusetts, jurisdic- tions in which their rights were much restricted, have modified the law to their advantage. In several of the Southern and Western States the doctrine has been abolished as to railroad employees, — a class in which injuries are of frequent occurrence. Below these surface indications is the trend of public opinion, not supporting capital at the expense of labor, nor labor at the expense of cap- ital, but favoring a more equitable distribution of the responsibil- ity which must fall upon the one or the other whenever labor is injured in the employ of capital.

In conclusion, it is interesting to note that the continental law already holds that position towards which our law is slowly drifting. In France, under the Civil Code,^ an employer is held liable to one employee injured by the negligence of a co-em- ployee. The law of Italy is the same.^ In Germany, owners of railroads, mines, quarries, pits, or factories are made liable in cer- tain cases for the negligence of employees.

Marland C, Hobbs, Boston, Mass.

that the mmte of a merchantman, and a common sailor under him, were fellow-servants within the rule, shows to what an extent the doctrine is still carried. See also Rogers v, Ludlow Manufacturing Co., 144 Mass. 198, 203.

1 Article 1384.

^ Italian Code, art. 11 52.