08/11/2015

LEXISNEXISAcademic

NicholasFarwellvs.TheBostonandWorcesterRailRoadCorporation.

[NONUMBERINORIGINAL]

SUPREMECOURTOFMASSACHUSETTS,SUFFOLKANDNANTUCKET

45Mass.491842Mass.LEXIS1044Met.49

March,1842,Decided
PRIORHISTORY:[**1]Inanactionoftrespassuponthecase,theplaintiffallegedinhisdeclaration,
thatheagreedwiththedefendantstoservethemintheemploymentofanengineerinthemanagementand
careoftheirenginesandcarsrunningontheirrailroadbetweenBostonandWorcester,andenteredonsaid
employment,andcontinuedtoperformhisdutiesasengineertillOctober30th1837,whenthedefendants,at
Newton,bytheirservants,socarelessly,negligentlyandunskillfullymanagedandused,andputandplaced
theironmatchrail,calledtheshortswitch,acrosstherailortrackoftheirsaidrailroad,thattheengineand
cars,uponwhichtheplaintiffwasengagedandemployedinthedischargeofhissaiddutiesofengineer,were
thrownfromthetrackofsaidrailroad,andtheplaintiff,bymeansthereof,wasthrownwithgreatviolence
uponthegroundbymeansofwhichoneofthewheelsofoneofsaidcarspassedovertherighthandofthe
plaintiff,crushinganddestroyingthesame.

Thecasewassubmittedtothecourtonthefollowingfactsagreedbytheparties:"Theplaintiffwasemployed
bythedefendants,in1835,asanengineer,andwentatfirstwiththemerchandizecars,[**2]andafterwards
withthepassengercars,andsocontinuedtillOctober30th1837,atthewagesoftwodollarsperdaythat
beingtheusualwagespaidtoenginemen,whicharehigherthanthewagespaidtoamachinist,inwhich
capacitytheplaintiffformerlywasemployed.

"Onthe30thofOctober1837,theplaintiff,thenbeingintheemploymentofthedefendants,assuchengine
man,andrunningthepassengertrain,ranhisengineoffataswitchontheroad,whichhadbeenleftina
wrongcondition,(asallegedbytheplaintiff,and,forthepurposesofthistrial,admittedbythedefendants,)by
oneWhitcomb,anotherservantofthedefendants,whohadbeenlongintheiremployment,asaswitchmanor
tender,andhadthecareofswitchesontheroad,andwasacarefulandtrustworthyservant,inhisgeneral
character,andassuchservantwaswellknowntotheplaintiff.Bywhichrunningoff,theplaintiffsustained
theinjurycomplainedofinhisdeclaration.

"ThesaidFarwell(theplaintiff)andWhitcombwerebothappointedbythesuperintendentoftheroad,who
wasinthehabitofpassingoverthesameveryfrequentlyinthecars,andoftenrodeontheengine.

"If[**3]thecourtshallbeofopinionthat,asmatteroflaw,thedefendantsarenotliabletotheplaintiff,he
beingaservantofthecorporation,andintheiremployment,fortheinjuryhemayhavereceivedfromthe
negligenceofsaidWhitcomb,anotherservantofthecorporation,andintheiremployment,thentheplaintiff
shallbecomenonsuitbutifthecourtshallbeofopinion,asmatteroflaw,thatthedefendantsmaybeliablein
thiscase,thenthecaseshallbesubmittedtoajuryuponthefactswhichmaybeprovedinthecasethe
defendantsallegingnegligenceonthepartoftheplaintiff."
DISPOSITION:Plaintiffnonsuit.
OPINION:[*55]Shaw,C.J.Thisisanactionofnewimpressioninourcourts,andinvolvesaprincipleof
greatimportance.Itpresentsacase,wheretwopersonsareintheserviceandemploymentofonecompany,
whosebusinessitistoconstructandmaintainarailroad,andtoemploytheirtrainsofcarstocarrypersons
andmerchandizeforhire.Theyareappointedandemployedbythesamecompanytoperformseparateduties
andservices,alltendingtotheaccomplishmentofoneandthesamepurposethatofthesafeandrapid
transmissionofthetrainsandtheyarepaidfortheirrespectiveservicesaccordingtothenatureoftheir
respectiveduties,andthelaborandskillrequiredfortheirproperperformance.Thequestionis,whether,for
damagessustainedbyoneofthepersonssoemployed,bymeansofthecarelessnessandnegligenceof
http://plaza.ufl.edu/edale/Farwell.htm

1/5

08/11/2015

LEXISNEXISAcademic

another,thepartyinjuredhasaremedyagainstthecommonemployer.It[**12]isanargumentagainstsuch
anaction,thoughcertainlynotadecisiveone,thatnosuchactionhasbeforebeenmaintained.
ItislaiddownbyBlackstone,thatifaservant,byhisnegligence,doesanydamagetoastranger,themaster
shallbeanswerableforhisneglect.Butthedamagemustbedonewhileheisactuallyemployedinthe
master'sserviceotherwise,theservantshallanswerforhisownmisbehavior.1Bl.Com.431.M'Manusv.
Crickett,1East,106.Thisruleisobviouslyfoundedonthegreatprincipleofsocialduty,thateveryman,in
themanagementofhisownaffairs,whetherbyhimselforby[*56]hisagentsorservants,shallsoconduct
themasnottoinjureanotherandifhedoesnot,andanothertherebysustainsdamage,heshallanswerforit.
Ifdonebyaservant,inthecourseofhisemployment,andactingwithinthescopeofhisauthority,itis
considered,incontemplationoflaw,sofartheactofthemaster,thatthelattershallbeanswerableciviliter.
Butthispresupposesthatthepartiesstandtoeachotherintherelationofstrangers,betweenwhomthereisno
privityandtheaction,insuchcase,isanactionsoundingintort.The[**13]formistrespassonthecase,for
theconsequentialdamage.Themaximrespondeatsuperiorisadoptedinthatcase,fromgeneral
considerationsofpolicyandsecurity.
Butthisdoesnotapplytothecaseofaservantbringinghisactionagainsthisownemployertorecover
damagesforaninjuryarisinginthecourseofthatemployment,whereallsuchrisksandperilsasthe
employerandtheservantrespectivelyintendtoassumeandbearmayberegulatedbytheexpressorimplied
contractbetweenthem,andwhich,incontemplationoflaw,mustbepresumedtobethusregulated.
Thesameviewseemstohavebeentakenbythelearnedcounselfortheplaintiffintheargumentanditwas
conceded,thattheclaimcouldnotbeplacedontheprincipleindicatedbythemaximrespondeatsuperior,
whichbindsthemastertoindemnifyastrangerforthedamagecausedbythecareless,negligentorunskillful
actofhisservantintheconductofhisaffairs.Theclaim,therefore,isplaced,andmustbemaintained,if
maintainedatall,onthegroundofcontract.Asthereisnoexpresscontractbetweentheparties,applicableto
thispoint,itisplacedonthefootingofanimpliedcontract[**14]ofindemnity,arisingoutoftherelationof
masterandservant.Itwouldbeanimpliedpromise,arisingfromthedutyofthemastertoberesponsibleto
eachpersonemployedbyhim,intheconductofeverybranchofbusiness,wheretwoormorepersonsare
employed,topayforalldamageoccasionedbythenegligenceofeveryotherpersonemployedinthesame
service.Ifsuchadutywereestablishedbylawlikethatofacommoncarrier,tostandtoalllossesofgoods
notcausedbytheactofGodor[*57]ofapublicenemyorthatofaninnkeeper,toberesponsible,inlike
manner,forthebaggageofhisguestsitwouldbearuleoffrequentandfamiliaroccurrence,anditsexistence
andapplication,withallitsqualificationsandrestrictions,wouldbesettledbyjudicialprecedents.Butweare
ofopinionthatnosuchrulehasbeenestablished,andtheauthorities,asfarastheygo,areopposedtothe
principle.Priestleyv.Fowler,3Mees.&Welsb.1.Murrayv.SouthCarolinaRailRoadCompany,1
McMullan385.
Thegeneralrule,resultingfromconsiderationsaswellofjusticeasofpolicy,is,thathewhoengagesinthe
employmentofanotherfortheperformance[**15]ofspecifieddutiesandservices,forcompensation,takes
uponhimselfthenaturalandordinaryrisksandperilsincidenttotheperformanceofsuchservices,andin
legalpresumption,thecompensationisadjustedaccordingly.Andwearenotawareofanyprinciplewhich
shouldexcepttheperilsarisingfromthecarelessnessandnegligenceofthosewhoareinthesame
employment.Theseareperilswhichtheservantisaslikelytoknow,andagainstwhichhecanaseffectually
guard,asthemaster.Theyareperilsincidenttotheservice,andwhichcanbeasdistinctlyforeseenand
providedforintherateofcompensationasanyothers.Tosaythatthemastershallberesponsiblebecausethe
damageiscausedbyhisagents,isassumingtheverypointwhichremainstobeproved.Theyarehisagentsto
someextent,andforsomepurposesbutwhetherheisresponsible,inaparticularcase,fortheirnegligence,is
notdecidedbythesinglefactthattheyare,forsomepurposes,hisagents.Itseemstobenowwellsettled,
whatevermighthavebeenthoughtformerly,thatunderwriterscannotexcusethemselvesfrompaymentofa
lossbyoneoftheperilsinsuredagainst,onthegroundthatthe[**16]losswascausedbythenegligenceor
unskillfulnessoftheofficersorcrewofthevessel,intheperformanceoftheirvariousdutiesasnavigators,
althoughemployedandpaidbytheowners,and,inthenavigationofthevessel,theiragents.Copelandv.New
EnglandMarineIns.Co.2Met.440443,andcasestherecited.Iamawarethatthemaritimelawhasitsown
rulesandanalogies,[*58]andthatwecannotalwayssafelyrelyupontheminapplyingthemtoother
branchesoflaw.Buttheruleinquestionseemstobeagoodauthorityforthepoint,thatpersonsarenottobe
responsible,inallcases,forthenegligenceofthoseemployedbythem.
http://plaza.ufl.edu/edale/Farwell.htm

2/5

08/11/2015

LEXISNEXISAcademic

Ifwelookfromconsiderationsofjusticetothoseofpolicy,theywillstronglyleadtothesameconclusion.In
consideringtherightsandobligationsarisingoutofparticularrelations,itiscompetentforcourtsofjusticeto
regardconsiderationsofpolicyandgeneralconvenience,andtodrawfromthemsuchrulesaswill,intheir
practicalapplication,bestpromotethesafetyandsecurityofallpartiesconcerned.Thisis,intruth,thebasis
onwhichimpliedpromisesareraised,beingdutieslegallyinferredfromaconsideration[**17]ofwhatis
bestadaptedtopromotethebenefitofallpersonsconcerned,undergivencircumstances.Totakethewell
knownandfamiliarcasesalreadycitedacommoncarrier,withoutregardtoactualfaultorneglectinhimself
orhisservants,ismadeliableforalllossesofgoodsconfidedtohimforcarriage,exceptthosecausedbythe
actofGodorofapublicenemy,becausehecanbestguardthemagainstallminordangers,andbecause,in
caseofactualloss,itwouldbeextremelydifficultfortheownertoadduceproofofembezzlement,orother
actualfaultorneglectonthepartofthecarrier,althoughitmayhavebeentherealcauseoftheloss.Therisk
isthereforethrownuponthecarrier,andhereceives,intheformofpaymentforthecarriage,apremiumfor
theriskwhichhethusassumes.Soofaninnkeeperhecanbestsecuretheattendanceofhonestandfaithful
servants,andguardhishouseagainstthieves.Whereas,ifhewereresponsibleonlyuponproofofactual
negligence,hemightconniveatthepresenceofdishonestinmatesandretainers,andevenparticipateinthe
embezzlementofthepropertyoftheguests,duringthehoursoftheirnecessarysleep,andyet[**18]itwould
bedifficult,andoftenimpossible,toprovethesefacts.
Theliabilityofpassengercarriersisfoundedonsimilarconsiderations.Theyareheldtothestrictest
responsibilityforcare,vigilanceandskill,onthepartofthemselvesandallpersons[*59]employedbythem,
andtheyarepaidaccordingly.Theruleisfoundedontheexpediencyofthrowingtheriskuponthosewhocan
bestguardagainstit.StoryonBailments,590,&seq.
Weareofopinionthattheseconsiderationsapplystronglytothecaseinquestion.Whereseveralpersonsare
employedintheconductofonecommonenterpriseorundertaking,andthesafetyofeachdependsmuchon
thecareandskillwithwhicheachothershallperformhisappropriateduty,eachisanobserveroftheconduct
oftheothers,cangivenoticeofanymisconduct,incapacityorneglectofduty,andleavetheservice,ifthe
commonemployerwillnottakesuchprecautions,andemploysuchagentsasthesafetyofthewholeparty
mayrequire.Bythesemeans,thesafetyofeachwillbemuchmoreeffectuallysecured,thancouldbedoneby
aresorttothecommonemployerforindemnityincaseoflossbythenegligenceofeach[**19]other.
Regardingitinthislight,itistheordinarycaseofonesustaininganinjuryinthecourseofhisown
employment,inwhichhemustbearthelosshimself,orseekhisremedy,ifhehaveany,againsttheactual
wrongdoer.*

Footnotes
*SeeWinterbottomv.Wright,10Mees.&Welsb.109.Milliganv.Wedge12Adolph.&Ellis737.

EndFootnotes
Inapplyingtheseprinciplestothepresentcase,itappearsthattheplaintiffwasemployedbythedefendantsas
anengineer,attherateofwagesusuallypaidinthatemployment,beingahigherratethantheplaintiffhad
beforereceivedasamachinist.Itwasavoluntaryundertakingonhispart,withafullknowledgeoftherisks
incidenttotheemploymentandthelosswassustainedbymeansofanordinarycasualty,causedbythe
negligenceofanotherservantofthecompany.Underthesecircumstances,thelossmustbedeemedtobethe
resultofapureaccident,likethosetowhichallmen,inallemployments,andatalltimes,aremoreorless
exposedandlikesimilar[**20]lossesfromaccidentalcauses,itmustrestwhereitfirstfell,unlessthe
plaintiffhasaremedyagainstthepersonactuallyindefaultofwhichwegivenoopinion.
[*60]Itwasstronglypressedintheargument,thatalthoughthismightbeso,wheretwoormoreservantsare
employedinthesamedepartmentofduty,whereeachcanexertsomeinfluenceovertheconductoftheother,
andthustosomeextentprovideforhisownsecurityyetthatitcouldnotapplywheretwoormoreare
employedindifferentdepartmentsofduty,atadistancefromeachother,andwhereonecaninnodegree
controlorinfluencetheconductofanother.Butwethinkthisisfoundeduponasupposeddistinction,onwhich
itwouldbeextremelydifficulttoestablishapracticalrule.Whentheobjecttobeaccomplishedisoneandthe
same,whentheemployersarethesame,andtheseveralpersonsemployedderivetheirauthorityandtheir
http://plaza.ufl.edu/edale/Farwell.htm

3/5

08/11/2015

LEXISNEXISAcademic

compensationfromthesamesource,itwouldbeextremelydifficulttodistinguish,whatconstitutesone
departmentandwhatadistinctdepartmentofduty.Itwouldvarywiththecircumstancesofeverycase.Ifit
weremadetodependuponthenearnessordistanceofthe[**21]personsfromeachother,thequestion
wouldimmediatelyarise,hownearorhowdistantmusttheybe,tobeinthesameordifferentdepartments.In
ablacksmith'sshop,personsworkinginthesamebuilding,atdifferentfires,maybequiteindependentofeach
other,thoughonlyafewfeetdistant.Inaropewalk,severalmaybeatworkonthesamepieceofcordage,at
thesametime,atmanyhundredfeetdistantfromeachother,andbeyondthereachofsightandvoice,andyet
actingtogether.
Besides,itappearstous,thattheargumentrestsuponanassumedprincipleofresponsibilitywhichdoesnot
exist.Themaster,inthecasesupposed,isnotexemptfromliability,becausetheservanthasbettermeansof
providingforhissafety,whenheisemployedinimmediateconnexionwiththosefromwhosenegligencehe
mightsufferbutbecausetheimpliedcontractofthemasterdoesnotextendtoindemnifytheservantagainst
thenegligenceofanyonebuthimselfandheisnotliableintort,asforthenegligenceofhisservant,because
thepersonsufferingdoesnotstandtowardshimintherelationofastranger,butisonewhoserightsare
regulatedbycontractexpressorimplied.[**22]Theexemptionofthemaster,therefore,from[*61]liability
forthenegligenceofafellowservant,doesnotdependexclusivelyupontheconsideration,thattheservanthas
bettermeanstoprovideforhisownsafety,butuponothergrounds.Hencetheseparationoftheemployment
intodifferentdepartmentscannotcreatethatliability,whenitdoesnotarisefromexpressorimpliedcontract,
orfromaresponsibilitycreatedbylawtothirdpersons,andstrangers,forthenegligenceofaservant.
Acasemaybeputforthepurposeofillustratingthisdistinction.Supposetheroadhadbeenownedbyoneset
ofproprietorswhosedutyitwastokeepitinrepairandhaveitatalltimesreadyandinfitconditionforthe
runningofenginesandcars,takingatoll,andthattheenginesandcarswereownedbyanothersetof
proprietors,payingtolltotheproprietorsoftheroad,andreceivingcompensationfrompassengersfortheir
carriageandsupposetheengineertosufferalossfromthenegligenceoftheswitchtender.Weareinclined
totheopinionthattheengineermighthavearemedyagainsttherailroadcorporationandifso,itmustbeon
theground,thatasbetweenthe[**23]engineeremployedbytheproprietorsoftheenginesandcars,andthe
switchtenderemployedbythecorporation,theengineerwouldbeastranger,betweenwhomandthe
corporationtherecouldbenoprivityofcontractandnotbecausetheengineerwouldhavenomeansof
controllingtheconductoftheswitchtender.Theresponsibilitywhichoneisunderforthenegligenceofhis
servant,intheconductofhisbusiness,towardsthirdpersons,isfoundedonanotheranddistinctprinciplefrom
thatofimpliedcontract,andstandsonitsownreasonsofpolicy.Thesamereasonsofpolicy,wethink,limit
thisresponsibilitytothecaseofstrangers,forwhosesecurityaloneitisestablished.Likeconsiderationsof
policyandgeneralexpediencyforbidtheextensionoftheprinciple,sofarastowarrantaservantin
maintaininganactionagainsthisemployerforanindemnitywhichwethinkwasnotcontemplatedinthe
natureandtermsoftheemployment,andwhich,ifestablished,wouldnotconducetothegeneralgood.
Incomingtotheconclusionthattheplaintiff,inthepresentcase,isnotentitledtorecover,consideringitasin
somemeasure[*62]anicequestion,wewouldadd[**24]acautionagainstanyhastyconclusionastothe
applicationofthisruletoacasenotfullywithinthesameprinciple.Itmaybevariedandmodifiedby
circumstancesnotappearinginthepresentcase,inwhichitappears,thatnowilfulwrongoractualnegligence
wasimputedtothecorporation,andwheresuitablemeanswerefurnishedandsuitablepersonsemployedto
accomplishtheobjectinview.Wearefarfromintendingtosaythattherearenoimpliedwarrantiesand
undertakingsarisingoutoftherelationofmasterandservant.Whether,forinstance,theemployerwouldbe
responsibletoanengineerforalossarisingfromadefectiveorillconstructedsteamengine:Whetherthis
woulddependuponanimpliedwarrantyofitsgoodnessandsufficiency,oruponthefactofwilfulmisconduct,
orgrossnegligenceonthepartoftheemployer,ifanaturalperson,orofthesuperintendentorimmediate
representativeandmanagingagent,incaseofanincorporatedcompanyarequestionsonwhichwegiveno
opinion.Inthepresentcase,theclaimoftheplaintiffisnotputonthegroundthatthedefendantsdidnot
furnishasufficientengine,aproperrailroadtrack,awellconstructed[**25]switch,andapersonof
suitableskillandexperiencetoattenditthegravamenofthecomplaintis,thatthatpersonwaschargeable
withnegligenceinnotchangingtheswitch,intheparticularinstance,bymeansofwhichtheaccident
occurred,bywhichtheplaintiffsustainedasevereloss.Itought,perhaps,tobestated,injusticetotheperson
towhomthisnegligenceisimputed,thatthefactisstrenuouslydeniedbythedefendants,andhasnotbeen
triedbythejury.Byconsentoftheparties,thisfactwasassumedwithouttrial,inordertotaketheopinionof
thewholecourtuponthequestionoflaw,whether,ifsuchwasthefact,thedefendants,underthe
http://plaza.ufl.edu/edale/Farwell.htm

4/5

08/11/2015

LEXISNEXISAcademic

circumstances,wereliable.Uponthisquestion,supposingtheaccidenttohaveoccurred,andthelosstohave
beencaused,bythenegligenceofthepersonemployedtoattendtoandchangetheswitch,inhisnotdoingso
intheparticularcase,thecourtareofopinionthatitisalossforwhichthedefendantsarenotliable,andthat
theactioncannotbemaintained.
Plaintiffnonsuit.

http://plaza.ufl.edu/edale/Farwell.htm

5/5