Latest Important Cases may say whether or not the employer ought not to have investigated and ascertained the cause. That investiga tion and careful study would have led to the obtaining of the information brought out in this case, there can be little doubt. The evidence showed that at least one shop superintendent in Milwaukee using similar machines had known of the unconscious muscular habit likely to be formed in the use of such machines for nearly twenty years. Mr. Wolter, who was shop superinten dent in the tinware establishment of the Kieckhefer Bros. Co. for a number of years prior to 1899, testified that there were in use in the factory numbers of these same machines; that he himself discovered the danger of the formation of the habit, and that he warned every beginner at such a machine of the danger of forming the habit, and of forgetting himself and stepping on the treadle, and that he also warned him if the piece of tin stuck in the die then he should stop at once and notify the foreman in his department. This seems to be pretty conclusive proof that an employer who was inclined to pay attention to the question and devote thought to it could solve the mystery of these numerous and constantly re curring accidents with perfect machines; at least it is in our judgment evidence from which the jury could so conclude." On account of the interest which this decision will arouse, we depart from our usual rule to quote only the pronounce ment of the Court, and print the follow ing comment sent us by Mr. Doerfler: — "Observe that the Supreme Court is very guarded in its wording of this opinion, evidently for the reason that they cannot now fully realize in what way this new doctrine will be used in the practice. The value of this decision is not so great from a legal standpoint
153
as it is from a humanitarian standpoint. It has been commonly supposed here tofore that these accidents happened through negligence of the operators; now that the true cause has been shown and the danger-point in the operation of the machine discovered, my conten tion is that the operator will shrink from the danger, and his intention being called to the time when danger is imminent, a simple instruction as the one set forth in my brief, will, in my opinion, readily avoid future accidents. The tinware factories all over the United States, as I am informed, have already taken note of this new doctrine, and are taking precautions on account of it. Instead of increasing litigation from this source, it will practically avoid it. At any rate, an employer who conscientiously per forms his duty under the law will be relieved from liability." Federal and State Powers. Inheritances.
See
Inheritances. Distribution of Estates of Injured Employees — Death Damages — No Federal Power to Regulate Under Employers' Liability Act — Interstate Commerce Clause. N. Y. A case involving a conflict between the federal Employers' Liability Act of 1908 and the New York statute relating to the distribution of the damages recovered for the death of employees caused by the negligence of an employer was decided by the New York Court of Appeals Jan. 16 in a manner limiting the scope of the federal law, but Cullen, Ch.J., and Hiscock and Vann, JJ., dissented. Matter of Taylor is summed up by the syllabus of the New York Law Journal as follows: An intestate was killed through the negligence of a rail road company. He left a widow and father surviving, but no children or other next to kin. The widow was
