1

8epubllc of Lhe hlllpplnes

SUkLML CCUk1
Manlla
Ln 8AnC
Gk No 1076S December 22 1916
ACILN1L 1AMAC father of the m|nor 8rua||o 1amayo plalnLlffappellee
vs
CAkLCS GSLLL defendanLappellanL
wllllom A klocolJ ooJ 1bomos l nottlqoo fot oppelloot
MoJesto Ioopolo fot oppellee

1kLN1
1hls ls an acLlon for damages agalnsL Lhe defendanL Csell for personal ln[urles suffered by 8raullo 1amayo mlnor son of Lhe plalnLlff
lrom a [udgmenL ln favor of Lhe plalnLlff ln hls capaclLy as guardlan oJ lltem of 8raullo 1amayo for Lhe sum of 400 wlLhouL cosLs
excepL 23 fees for Lhe aLLorney of Lhe 8ureau of Labor Lhe defendanL appealed and now urges LhaL Lhe Lrlal courL erred
1 ln permlLLlng Lhe aLLorney of Lhe 8ureau of Labor Lo conducL Lhe case and awardlng hlm 23 fees
2 ln flndlng LhaL Carlos Csell ls Lhe owner of Lhe facLory whereln 8raullo was ln[ured
3 ln flndlng LhaL Lhe accldenL occurred because 8raullo 1amayo was asslgned Lo work Lo whlch he was noL accusLomed and dld noL
undersLand wlLhouL any prevlous warnlng as Lo Lhe dangers Lhereof or lnsLrucLlons as Lo Lhe manner of dolng Lhe work ln order Lo
avold belng ln[ured
4 ln flndlng LhaL Lhe negllgence of Lhe defendanL or Lhe persons for whom he ls responslble was Lhe cause of Lhe accldenL
3 ln decllnlng Lo susLaln Lhe defendanLs defenses of conLrlbuLory negllgence and assumpLlon of rlsks
6 ln awardlng damages agalnsL Lhe defendanL ln Lhe absence of a showlng LhaL Lhe ln[urles ln any way dlmlnlshed 8raullo 1amayo
earnlng capaclLy
AcL no 1868 approved !une 18 1908 creaLlng Lhe 8ureau of Labor provldes ln secLlon 2 LhaL Lhe purpose of Lhe 8ureau shall be Lo
see Lo Lhe proper enforcemenL of all exlsLlng laws and Lhose whlch shall be enacLed hereafLer wlLh reference Lo labor and caplLal ln
Lhe hlllpplne lslands and Lo promoLe Lhe enacLmenL of all oLher leglslaLlon whlch shall Lend Lo esLabllsh Lhe maLerlal soclal
lnLellecLual and moral lmprovemenL of workers Lo acqulre collecL complle sysLemaLlze and submlL from Llme Lo Llme reporLs Lo
Lhe SecreLary of Commerce and ollce sLaLlsLlcal daLa relaLlng Lo Lhe hours and wages of labor Lhe number of workers ln each Lrade
or occupaLlon eLc and Lo lnspecL all shops facLorles lndusLrlal and commerclal esLabllshmenLs and Lo Lake Lhe proper legal sLeps
Lo prevenL Lhe exposure of Lhe healLh or llves of laborers and Lo ald and asslsL by all proper legal means laborers and workers ln
securlng [usL compensaLlon for Lhelr labor and Lhe lndemnlLy prescrlbed by law for ln[urles resulLlng from accldenLs when engaged
ln Lhe performance of Lhelr duLles SecLlons 2 and 3 of AcL no 1868 were amended by AcL no 2238 buL such amendmenLs do noL
affecL Lhe lssues lnvolved ln Lhe lnsLanL case AcL no 2383 amends subsecLlon (J) of secLlon 2 and secLlon 3 of AcL no 1868 and adds
several paragraphs Lo Lhe end of secLlon 4 of LhaL AcL and repeals AcL no 2238 SubsecLlon (J) of secLlon 2 as Lhus amended reads
1o secure Lhe seLLlemenL of dlfference beLween employer and laborer and beLween masLer and servanL and Lo averL sLrlkes
and lockouLs acLlng as arblLraLor beLween Lhe parLles lnLeresLed summonlng Lhem Lo appear before lL and advlslng and

2

brlnglng abouL afLer hearlng Lhelr respecLlve allegaLlons and evldence such arrangemenL as Lhese may ln hls [udgmenL
show Lo be [usL and falr
1he perLlnenL provlslon added Lo secLlon 4 and provlde LhaL Lhe 8ureau of Labor shall also have an aLLorney who shall be pald a flxed
salary per annum
Sald aLLorney shall asslsL Lhe ulrecLor or AsslsLanL ulrecLor of Labor ln all legal quesLlons by Lhem submlLLed Lo hlm and
shall brlng sulL graLulLously ln Lhe proper courLs for laborers or servanLs when he shall deem Lhls proper afLer Lhe fallure of
Lhe endeavors Lo brlng abouL a frlendly seLLlemenL made by Lhe ulrecLor or AsslsLanL ulrecLor of Labor ln Lhe performance
of Lhe duLles lmposed had Lhe exerclse of Lhe powers conferred upon Lhem by subsecLlon (J) ltovlJeJ bowevet 1haL
Lhe aLLorney of Lhe 8ureau of Labor shall noL brlng sulL under Lhls AcL unless Lhe plalnLlff shall have prevlously secured a
cerLlflcaLe of lndlgency from Lhe proper courL
1he senLences of Lhe courLs Lrylng cases under Lhls AcL shall provlde ln case of [udgmenL ln favor of Lhe plalnLlff for Lhe paymenL by
Lhe defendanL of Lhe sum of LwenLyflve pesos as cosLs of Lhe aLLorney of Lhe 8ureau of Labor whlch sum shall be collecLed ln Lhe
same manner as oLher cosLs and Lurned lnLo Lhe lnsular 1reasury and credlLed Lo Lhe general funds
lL ls argued LhaL ln conferrlng Lhe power and duLy upon Lhe ulrecLor of Lhe 8ureau of Labor Lo secure Lhe seLLlemenL of dlfference
beLween employer and laborer and beLween masLer and servanL and Lo averL sLrlkes and lockouLs Lhe leglslaLure never lnLended Lo
brlng negllgence cases resulLlng ln personal ln[urles under Lhe [urlsdlcLlon of Lhe ulrecLor lf Lhe aLLorney of Lhe 8ureau of Labor ls
auLhorlzed Lo represenL Lhe plalnLlff ln acLlons such as Lhe one under conslderaLlon he could lL ls sald appear on behalf of a laborer
charged by hls employer wlLh larceny of maLerlals or on behalf of an employee under prosecuLlon for assaulLlng hls masLer We Lhlnk
Lhls resulL does noL necessarlly follow 1he ulrecLor ls glven Lhe power and lL ls made hls duLy Lo ald and asslsL by all legal means
laborers and workers ln securlng Lhe lndemnlLy prescrlbed by law for ln[urles resulLlng from accldenLs lf Lhls cannoL be done by a
frlendly seLLlemenL Lhen Lhe aLLorney shall brlng sulL graLulLously for Lhe employee lf such employee ls Loo por Lo employ prlvaLe
counsel no addlLlonal rlghL of acLlon ls glven laborers and workers by Lhls leglslaLlon
lL was only Lhe lnLenLlon of Lhe LeglslaLure as expressed ln Lhe acLs Lo provlde Lhe servlces of an aLLorney for pauper employees ln
cerLaln cased and Lo Lax a porLlon of Lhe cosLs of such servlces agalnsL Lhe defendanL lf Lhe sulL be successful 1hls lL ls Lrue ls
advanced leglslaLlon when compared wlLh slmllar AcLs ln Lhe unlLed SLaLes ln Mlssourl Lhe 8ureau of Labor ls ln mosL cases chlefly
an lnsLrumenL for gaLherlng sLaLlsLlcs 1he arblLraLlon of dlspuLes beLween employers and employees ls glven Lo a board dlsLlncL
form Lhe 8ureau of Labor (Ann SLa 1906) MlnnesoLa (SLaLuLes of 1894) provldes for a 8ureau of Labor Lo gaLher sLaLlsLlcs and
lnspecL facLorles wlLh Lhe power Lo enforce Lhe laws perLalnlng Lo Lhe welfare of Lhe worklngmen buL glves lL no power Lo
prosecuLe clvll acLlons for lndlvlduals ln nebraska Lhe 8ureau of Labor ls a sLaLlsLlc gaLherer a facLory lnspecLor and proLecLor of
Lhe laborer Lo Lhe exLenL LhaL Lhe commlssloner may flle a complalnL for a vlolaLlon of Lhe AcL creaLlng Lhe 8ureau and deflnlng lLs
powers whlch Lhe counLy aLLorney musL prosecuLe (SLaLuLes of nebraska 1911) CLher SLaLes have slmllar sLaLues Some SLaLe
provlde for publlc defenders ln crlmlnal cases ln Lhls [urlsdlcLlon provlslons are made for Lhe defense of pauper crlmlnals and
secLlon 33 of Lhe Code of Clvll rocedure auLhorlzes Lhe Supreme CourL and Lhe CourLs of llrsL lnsLance Lo asslgn any lawyer Lo
render professlonal ald Lo a parLy ln any pendlng acLlon free of charge lf such courL upon full lnvesLlgaLlon shall flnd LhaL Lhe parLy
ls desLlLuLe and unable Lo employ a lawyer 1he sLaLuLe under conslderaLlon requlres a cerLlflcaLe of lndlgency from Lhe courL before
an aLLorney of Lhe 8ureau of Labor can lnsLlLuLe Lhe acLlon 1he only essenLlal dlfference beLween Lhe Lwo sysLems ls a small amounL
for Lhe servlces of Lhe aLLorney of Lhe 8ureau of Labor whlch ls Laxed agalnsL defendanLs when Lhe plalnLlffs are successful buL lL
cannoL be done excepL ln cases where a frlendly seLLlemenL has falled Conslderlng Lhe scope and purposes of Lhe AcLs ln
connecLlon wlLh Lhe facL LhaL Lhe plalnLlffs are paupers we see no reason for holdlng LhaL Lhe provlslons aLLacked are ln vlolaLlon of
publlc pollcy or Lranscends Lhe power of Lhe LeglslaLure 1herefore Lhe flrsL asslgnmenL of error ls wlLhouL merlL
1he second asslgnmenL of error has no merlL 1he plalnLlff LesLlfled poslLlvely LhaL Lhe defendanL ls Lhe owner of Lhe facLory and
when anoLher wlLness was asked who Lhe owner was counsel for Lhe defendanL sLaLed We do noL dlspuLe Lhe ownershlp no
oLher LesLlmony was offered on Lhls polnL and all proceeded LhereafLer upon Lhe Lheory LhaL Lhere was no quesLlon abouL Lhe facL
LhaL Lhe defendanL ls Lhe owner of Lhe maLch facLory yeL counsel ln Lhelr prlnLed brlef say LhaL Lhere ls noL one syllable of
evldence ln Lhe LesLlmony or anywhere else ln Lhe record as Lo Lhe ownershlp of Lhls facLory
1he oLher asslgnmenLs of error ralse boLh quesLlons of facL and law 1he Lrlal courLs flndlngs of facL are Lhese

3

1he facLs proven ln Lhe case are as follows
1 1haL Lhe boy 8raullo 1amayo whose age nelLher he nor hls faLher aclenLe 1amayo knows nor does lL appear of record
buL whlch ln Lhe oplnlon of Lhe courL ls abouL eleven or Lwelve years was one of Lhe workmen employed ln Lhe maLch
facLory slLuaLed ln SanLa Ana Manlla and owned by Lhe defendanL Carlos Csell Cn Lhe 13Lh of March 1914 Lhe boy meL
wlLh an accldenL whlch conslsLed of an ln[ury caused by Lhe knlfe of one of Lhe machlnes of Lhe facLory whlch cuL Lhe llLLle
rlng flngers on Lhe rlghL hand Lhe laLLer of whlch was severed
2 1haL Lhe accldenL arose by reason of hls belng asslgned by Lugenlo Murcla one of Lhe foremen employed ln Lhe facLory
Lo perform work Lo whlch he was noL accusLomed Pe was puL aL Lhe machlne of Arcadlo 8eyes only Lhe day of Lhe
accldenL ln splLe of hls perslsLenL and manlfesL opposlLlon Lo asslsL Lhe machlnlsL hls work was Lo recover sLrlps used ln
Lhe manufacLure of maLch boxes from Lhe machlne LxhlblL 1 whlch were exLracLed from Lhe sald machlne from Lhe wood
placed Lhereln AL Lhe same Llme he had Lo clean ouL Lhe pleces of wood form sald sLrlps whlch sLuck ln Lhe machlne and
obsLrucLed lLs proper worklng rlor Lo Lhe daLe ln quesLlon Lhe only work enLrusLed Lo Lhe boy 8raullo 1amayo was Lo plck
over Lhe plles of wood from whlch Lhe sLrlps used ln Lhe manufacLure of maLch boxes were made and selecL Lhe besL pleces
for Lhe purpose
3 uue Lo hls lnexperlence ln Lhe work Lo whlch for Lhe flrsL lLem and wlLhouL any preparaLlon or lnsLrucLlon he had been
asslgned ln essaylng Lo clean LhaL parL of Lhe machlne where Lhe pleces of wood from Lhe sLrlps were sLuck he was caughL
by Lhe knlfe of Lhe machlne and Lhe rlghL flnger of hls rlghL hand was served Pe was Lhereupon Laken Lo Lhe Ceneral
PosplLal where he recelved medlcal LreaLmenL unLll he was released
4 1he plalnLlff complled wlLh Lhe provlslon conLalned ln secLlon 4 of AcL no 1874 advlslng Lhe employer who ls Lhe
defendanL hereln of Lhe accldenL whlch had occurred Lo hls son
ln vlew of Lhe facLs as Lhey were shown ln Lhe record ln splLe of Lhe confllcLlng LesLlmony of Lhe wlLnesses of boLh sldes
Lhe courL ls obllged Lo glve credlL Lo Lhe LesLlmony of Lhe wlLnesses for Lhe plalnLlff and slnce lL was noL conLradlcLed by
Lugenlo Murcla Lo whom ls aLLrlbuLed Lhe deLermlnaLlon Lo asslgn 8raullo 1amayo on Lhe daLe and hour ln quesLlon Lo
anoLher machlne and Lo glve hlm lnsplLe of hls Lender years work of a class Lo whlch he was noL accusLomed Lhe
responslblllLy conLracLed by Lhe employer Lo lndemnlfy Lhe ln[ured workman represenLed by hls faLher for Lhe damage and
ln[ury whlch he has suffered accordlng Lo Lhe AcL clLed ls very clear
Lugenlo Murcla was one of Lhe foremen employed ln Lhe facLory he knew Lhe klnd of work whlch was asslgned Lo each of
Lhe employees ln relaLlon Lo Lhelr respecLlve ages and he musL have known LhaL lL ls noL Lhe same Lhlng Lo selecL wood lylng
on Lhe ground work ln whlch 8raullo 1amayo had been employed ever slnce he enLered Lhe employ of Lhe facLory as Lo
recelve Lhe sLrlps dellvered from Lhe machlne LxhlblL 1 and Lo clean Lhe sald machlne even whlle lL was runnlng of Lhose
parLs of Lhe sLrlps whlch mlghL lnLerfere wlLh lLs worklng and he should noL have suddenly ordered 8raullo 1amayo Laklng
lnLo accounL hls youLh Lo Lemporarlly Lake Lhe place of a workman who ordlnarlly performed Lhe work we have spoken of
on Arcadlo 8eyes machlne especlally wlLhouL flrsL preparlng hlm and glvlng hlm Lhe necessary lnsLrucLlon ln order Lo avold
an accldenL such as LhaL whlch occurred and one Lo whlch a boy of Lhe age of 8raullo 1amayo would be exposed
AfLer a careful examlnaLlon of Lhe record we are convlnced LhaL Lhe foregolng flndlngs of facL are supporLed by a falr preponderance
of Lhe evldence 1hls belng Lrue and Lhe flndlngs belng Lhe resulL found by Lhe Lrlal courL from confllcLlng LesLlmony we cerLalnly are
noL [usLlfled ln reverslng Lhe [udgmenL upon Lhls branch of Lhe case ln unlLed SLaLes vs 8enlLez and Llpla (18 hll 8ep 313 317)
!usLlce Moreland speaklng for Lhe courL sald
ln a confllcL of LesLlmony such as ls presenLed ln Lhls case Lhls courL musL reopened Lo a conslderable exLenL upon Lhe
dlscernmenL of Lhe [udge who slLs aL Lhe Lrlal A careful and dlscrlmlnaLlng Lrlal [udge has unequaled advanLages ln
deLermlnlng Lhe relaLlve credlblllLy of opposlng wlLnesses lf he exerclses hls faclllLles wlLh shrewdness and sagaclLy he
performs a mosL valuable work for Lhe appellaLe courL We have consldered Lhls case ln a very palnsLaklng manner We
have searched Lhe record for any evldence lndlcaLlng LhaL Lhe learned Lrlal courL was mlsLaken ln hls [udgmenL as Lo Lhe
relaLlve credlblllLy of Lhe wlLnesses or LhaL he had overlooked some facL or clrcumsLances of welghL or lnfluence ln passlng
upon Lhe evldence or LhaL he had mlslnLerpreLed Lhe slgnlflcance of Lhe facLs as proved We have been unable Lo flnd from
Lhe record LhaL Lhe learned Lrlal courL has fallen lnLo such error and ln accordance wlLh Lhe rule whlch we have so ofLen

4

lald down namely LhaL Lhls courL wlll noL lnLerfere wlLh Lhe [udgmenL of Lhe Lrlal courL ln passlng upon Lhe relaLlve
credlblllLy of opposlng wlLnesses unless Lhere appears ln Lhe record some facL or clrcumsLance of welghL and lnfluence
whlch has been overlooked or lLs slgnlflcance mlslnLerpreLed by hlm we decllne Lo lnLerfere wlLh Lhe [udgmenL of Lhe Lrlal
courL upon Lhe facLs ln Lhls case
1he foregolng well consldered rule ls perfecLly appllcable Lo Lhe case under conslderaLlonlowpbl1oet
ur vasquez of Lhe Ceneral PosplLal who aLLended 8raullo 1amayo aL Lhe Llme he was ln[ured LesLlfled ln reference Lo Lhe naLure
and characLer of Lhe ln[urles as follows
C uo you know ln whaL condlLlon Lhe chllds flnger was? A 1he flnger was mashed
C Are you sure LhaL lL was mashed? A Mashed and severed
uurlng Lhe Lrlal of Lhe case counsel for Lhe defendanL made Lhls sLaLemenL
l wlsh Lo appear of record LhaL Lhe rlghL hand of Lhe chlld shows LhaL Lhe severed flnger was cuL aL Lhe flrsL [olnL lL also
bears a dlagonal scar lnslde (lnLerlor?) and near Lhe Llp of Lhe nexL flnger Lhe llLLle flnger
WlLh reference Lo wheLher Lhere was a dlmunlLlon ln Lhe earnlng capaclLy of 8raullo 1amayo due Lo Lhe ln[urles recelved and as Lo
Lhe paymenL of expenses and salary whlle he was belng LreaLed for Lhe ln[urles Celser superlnLendenL of Lhe defendanLs facLory
LesLlfled LhaL Lhe defendanL pald Lhe hosplLal blll and 8raullos regular salary of flfLy cenLs a day durlng Lhe Llme he was absenL LhaL
afLer 8raullo lefL Lhe hosplLal he (Lhe wlLness) Lrled Lo geL hlm Lo reLurn Lo work aL Lhe same salary buL he refused Lo do so and LhaL
8raullo could occupy any place ln Lhe facLory whlch hls age would permlL as hls hand had been cured Whlle Lhls wlLness dld noL
deflnlLely sLaLe LhaL 8raullos ln[urles dld noL dlmlnlsh hls earnlng capaclLy for Lhe work he was dolng ln Lhe facLory yeL lL may be
lnferred and we so declde LhaL Lhe boy can perform hls former works ln Lhe facLory [usL as well as now as he could before Lhe
accldenL or ln oLher words Lhe ln[urles caused no dlmunlLlon of hls ablllLy Lo perform such work As Lo Lhe characLer of Lhe ln[urles
we have Lhe flndlng of Lhe Lrlal courL Lo Lhe effecL LhaL Lhe llLLle and rlng flngers on Lhe rlghL hand were cuL Lhe laLLer of whlch was
severed and Lhe sLaLemenL of counsel LhaL Lhe rlng flnger was cuL off aL Lhe flrsL [olnL and Lhe llLLle flnger showed a dlagonal scar on
Lhe lnslde of Lhe end
1he resulL ls LhaL we have a case where a foreman of a maLch facLory owned and operaLed by Lhe defendanL puL a young lgnoranL
employee Lo work aL dangerous machlnery wlLhouL any prevlous preparaLlon or lnsLrucLlon 1he boy was only 11 or 12 years old and
so lgnoranL LhaL he dld noL know before Lhe accldenL whlch resulLed ln Lhe severlng of hls rlng flnger on hls rlghL hand aL Lhe flrsL
[olnL dolng only Lhe very slmplesL work ln Lhe performance of whlch he had noLhlng Lo do wlLh Lhe machlnery Pe was ordered
agalnsL hls perslsLenL and manlfesL opposlLlon Lo asslsL ln cleanlng ouL Lhe pleces of wood whlch sLuck ln Lhe machlnery and
obsLrucLed lLs proper worklng wlLhouL any prevlous warnlng of Lhe dangers lncldenL Lo such work or prevlous lnsLrucLlon as Lo how
he should do Lhe work ln order Lo avold accldenLs Pe was enLlrely unfamlllar wlLh LhaL klnd of work whlch requlred aL leasL some
knowledge of Lhe worklng of Lhe machlne 1he machlne was noL defecLlve and Lhe danger resulLlng from puLLlng ones flnger under
Lhe knlfe was obvlous 1o Lhls exLenL Lhe esLabllshed facLs are agalnsL Lhe conLenLlons of Lhe defendanL
1he quesLlons of law requlre an lnvesLlgaLlon Louchlng Lhe scope and purposes of AcL no 1874 known as Lhe Lmployers LlablllLy
AcL We wlll flrsL lnqulre lnLo Lhe orlgln and hlsLory of Lhls AcL
8y a [olnL resoluLlon of Lhe Lwo Pouses daLed lebruary 1 1908 Lhere were appolnLed on Aprll 30 1908 a commlLLee of LwenLyone
for Lhe purpose of preparlng and submlLLlng Lo Lhe presldenL of Lhe Commlsslon and Lhe Speaker of Lhe Assembly lLs
recommendaLlons on Lhe Labor AccldenL 8lll presenLed by Lhe 8epresenLaLlve for Lhe Second ulsLrlcL of Manlla Ponorable lernando
Ma Cuerrero and Lo sLudy prepare and submlL also any oLher recommendaLlons deemed perLlnenL ln Lhe premlses (vol 2 p
289 of Lhe Commlsslon !ournal of 1908)
8efore Lhls commlLLee meL for Lhe purpose as lndlcaLed Lwo oLher bllls were drafLed one by anoLher member of Lhe Assembly and
Lhe oLher by Lhe SecreLary of Commerce and ollce who was Lhen a member of Lhe LeglslaLure uurlng Lhe sesslons of Lhe
commlLLee Lhe Lhree bllls were dlscussed and by a ma[orlLy voLe a fourLh blll was prepared and lLs passage recommended 1he
Assembly Lhen passed a blll subsLanLlally Lhe same as LhaL recommended by Lhe commlLLee 1he commlLLee of Lhe Commlsslon Lo

3

whom Lhe Assembly blll was referred recommended ln lLs reporL of !une 13 1908 varlous amendmenLs 1hese amendmenLs were
adopLed by Lhe Commlsslon and Lhe blll as Lhus amended was passed by LhaL body 1he blll ln lLs amended form was reLurned Lo
Lhe Assembly and passed by lL and became law (AcL no 1874) on !une 19 1908 1he chalrman of Lhe [olnL commlLLee ln hls reporL
Lo Lhe resldenL of Lhe Commlsslon and Lhe speaker of Lhe Assembly ln referrlng Lo Lhe blll prepared by Lhe SecreLary of Commerce
and ollce sald
Cne of Lhese (bllls) was prepared ln Lhe ueparLmenL of Commerce and ollce for submlsslon Lo Lhe commlLLee whlch was
drawn subsLanLlally along Lhe llnes whlch have prevalled ln Lhe SLaLe of MassachuseLLs some years and upon whlch
lnLerpreLaLlons have been made by Lhe MasachuseLLs courLs deflnlng Lhe exacL meanlng of Lhe provlslons of Lhe law (vol
2 p 298 Commlsslon !ournal of 1908)
A comparlson of AcL no 1874 wlLh LhaL of Lhe SLaLe of MassachuseLLs of 1902 shows LhaL Lhe former ls essenLlally a copy of Lhe
laLLer 1he flrsL secLlon of each ls exacLly Lhe same and ln so far as Lhe quesLlon under conslderaLlon are concerned Lhere are no
dlfferences ln Lhe oLher secLlons of Lhe Lwo acLs
lL appears from Lhe offlclal proceedlngs of Lhe [olnL commlLLee LhaL Lhe Cuerrero blll whlch was re[ecLed by Lhe commlLLee and Lhe
LeglslaLure was based on Lhe Spanlsh law 1hls ls shown from Lhe followlng exLracL from Lhese proceedlngs
1he clause conLalned ln Lhe Cuerrero blll was based on a slmllar clause found ln Lhe Spanlsh law whlch was puL ln Lhe same
order Lo make provlslon for Lhe damage and deLrlmenL caused by work ln Lhe mercury mlnes and as Lhe Cuerrero blll was
based on Lhe Spanlsh law Lhls clause was puL ln lor Lhls reason l move LhaL Lhe amendmenL proposed by Mr !avler be
re[ecLed buL Lhe secLlon as lL ls drawn up be adopLed
AcL no 1874 does noL aLLempL Lo deflne generally Lhe rlghLs of masLer and servanLs and ls noL a codlflcaLlon of Lhe law 8eference
musL be made Lo some oLher law Lo deflne who are masLers who are servanLs whaL ls Lhe scope of Lhe employmenL and wheLher
Lhe ln[ury was Lhe approxlmaLe resulL of Lhe negllgence and negllgence lLself musL be deLermlned by LhaL oLher law and noL by Lhe
AcL 1he AcL does noL lmpose any obllgaLlon on Lhe masLer Lo employ compeLenL servanLs nor Lo lnsLrucL or warn hls servanLs abouL
Lhelr work or Lhe dangers of lL 1hese obllgaLlons lf Lhey exlsL musL be found elsewhere nelLher does Lhe AcL deflne Lhe word
damages by seLLlng forLh Lhe elemenL Lhereof nor does lL flx any general rules for deLermlnlng Lhe measure of damages ln
personal ln[ury case broughL under lL lL does provlde however LhaL ln Lhose case where damages are awarded for Lhe deaLh of an
employee Lhe same shall be assessed wlLh reference Lo Lhe degree of culpablllLy of Lhe employer or of Lhe person for whose
negllgence Lhe employer ls llable 1he AcL also flxes Lhe mlnlmum and maxlmum amounLs whlch may be awarded lf deaLhs resulLs
from Lhe ln[urles and Lhe maxlmum amounL of damages for personal ln[urles noL resulLlng ln Lhe deaLh of Lhe employee ln
deLermlnlng Lhe lmporLanL quesLlon here lnvolved for Lhe purpose of ascerLalnlng Lhe lnLenLlon of Lhe LeglslaLure musL we look Lo
Lhe Clvll Code and Lhe declslon of Lhls courL ln consLrulng lLs provlslons for our guldance or was Lhe sLaLuLe adopLed wlLh Lhe
consLrucLlon glven Lo lL by Lhe courL ln Lhe counLry from whlch lL was copled?
1he MassachuseLLs sLaLuLe was copled verbaLlm wlLh some varlaLlons of deLall from Lhe Lngllsh sLaLuLe (43 and 44 vlcL ch 42)
1herefore lL ls proper lf noL necessary Lo begln by conslderlng how Lhe Lngllsh acL had been consLrucLed before our sLaLuLe was
enacLed (8yalls vs Mechanlcs Mllls 130 Mass 190 3 L 8 A 667)
1he Lmployers LlablllLy AcL of Alabama flrsL enacLed ln 1833 (Clvll Code 1907 Ch 80 sec 3910) ls a subsLanLlal lf noL an exacL
copy of Lhe Lngllsh AcL of 1880
1hls courL ls noL flnally concluded by Lhe declslon of any oLher SLaLe courL or Lhe 8rlLlsh courL ln Lhelr consLrucLlon of a
slmllar sLaLuLe buL Lhe oplnlon of learned courLs upon slmllar quesLlons are enLlLled Lo greaL welghL and Lhls ls speclally
Lrue when Lhe sLaLuLe from whlch ours was copled had been consLrued prlor Lo lLs enacLmenL by our leglslaLure
(8rlmlngham 8y LlecLrlc Co vs Allen 99 Ala 339 371 20 L 8 A 437)
1he Lmployers LlablllLy AcL of Colorado (Laws 1893 chap 77 Mllls AnnoLaLed SLaLuLes Supp 18911896 sec 1311o) was copled
from Lhe MassachuseLLs AcL of 1887 and Lhe Colorado LeglslaLure presumably adopLed Lhe AcL wlLh Lhe consLrucLlon LhaL had been
glven lL by Lhe courLs of LhaL sLaLe (Colorado Mllllng LlevaLor Co vs MlLchell 1899 26 Colo 284)

6

Cenerally speaklng when a sLaLuLe has been adopLed from anoLher SLaLe or counLry and such sLaLuLe has prevlously been
consLrued by Lhe courLs of such SLaLe or counLry Lhe sLaLuLe ls deemed Lo have been adopLed wlLh Lhe consLrucLlon so
glven lL (Cerezo vs ALlanLlc Culf aclflc Co 33 hll 8ep 423 clLlng 2 Lewls SuLherland on SLaL ConsL sec 783)
1he law belng so clearly Lraced Lo lLs source and Lhe lnLenLlon of Lhe LeglslaLure belng so apparenL lL ls necessary Lo ascerLaln and
be gulded by Lhe declslons of Lhe courLs ln Lhe unlLed SLaLes consLrulng essenLlally Lhe same law lurLher reference wlll be made Lo
Lhe same quesLlon ln conslderlng Lhe slxLh asslgnmenL of error
uresser on Lmployers LlablllLy (vol 1 sec 2) says
lL ls apparenL LhaL Lhe acL has noL aLLempLed Lo deflne generally Lhe rlghLs and duLles of masLer and servanLs and ls noL a
codlflcaLlon of Lhe law ConsLanL reference musL be made Lo Lhe common law Lo deflne who are masLer and who
servanLs whaL ls Lhe scope of Lhe employmenL and wheLher Lhe ln[ury was Lhe proxlmaLe resulL of Lhe negllgence and
negllgence lLself ls deLermlned by Lhe common law and noL by Lhe acL 1he acL moreover ls sllenL concernlng cerLaln
Lerms of Lhe conLracL of servlce lL does noL lmpose any obllgaLlons on Lhe masLer Lo employ compeLenL servanLs nor Lo
lnsLrucL or warn hls servanLs abouL Lhelr work or Lhe dangers of lL 1hese obllgaLlons were Loo well seLLled and lmporLanL Lo
be Laken away by lmpllcaLlon merely and Lhe courLs have held LhaL Lhe acL was remedlal and a concurrenL lnsLead of an
excluslve remedy (ClLlng cases from MassachuseLLs Alabama Colorado and Lngland)
1he courLs ln Lhe unlLed SLaLes ln order Lo ascerLaln whaL changes have been made by Lhe Lmployers LlablllLy AcLs ln Lhe fellow
servanL rule held LhaL aL common law Lhe masLer lmplledly agreed Lo provlde compeLenL workmen and ln so dolng he was bound
Lo exerclse LhaL measure of care whlch reasonably prudenL men do so under slmllar clrcumsLances LhaL Lhe masLer ls noL an lnsurer
and LhaL lL was only necessary LhaL Lhe danger ln Lhe work be noL enhanced Lhrough hls faulL 1he servanL on hls parL by enLerlng
Lhe employmenL was held Lo lmplledly agree Lo Lake upon hlmself Lhe perlls arlslng from Lhe carelessness and recklessness of Lhose
were ln Lhe same employmenL wlLhouL regard Lo Lhelr grade rank or auLhorlLy ln Lhe servlce provlded LhaL Lhe acL causlng Lhe
ln[ury was noL ln Lhe performance of any personal duLy of Lhe masLer lnLrusLed Lo Lhe negllgenL servanL 1he whole docLrlne ln brlef
was a denlal as Lo Lhe employee of Lhe prlnclple of tespooJeot sopetlot under Lhe laLLer a sLranger lnvlLed upon Lhe masLers
premlses could recover for Lhe ln[urles recelved Lhrough Lhe negllgence of Lhe employees lL was Lhls rlghL whlch was denled Lo Lhe
employees 1he effecL of secLlon 1 of Lhe Lmployers LlablllLy AcL Lhe same courLs held ls Lo exempL from Lhe class of fellow
servanLs Lhe resulL of whose negllgence Lhe servanL was held Lo have assumed such persons as are lnLrusLed by Lhe masLer wlLh
duLles of superlnLendence whlle ln Lhe exerclse of Lhem 1he persons musL be superlnLendenLs wlLhln Lhe meanlng of Lhe AcL and
Lhe negllgenL acLs musL have been done ln Lhe exerclse of Lhe conLrolllng funcLlons of superlnLendenL Applylng Lhese prlnclples Lo
Lhe lnsLanL case Lhere can be no doubL LhaL Lugenlo Murcla one of Lhe foremen employed ln Lhe defendanLs facLory was
exerclslng Lhe conLrolllng funcLlons of superlnLendenL when he ordered 8raullo 1amayo Lo asslsL ln keeplng Lhe machlne clean
ConsequenLly lf such acL consLlLuLes negllgence Lhe defendanL ls llable ln damages for Lhe ln[ures caused Lhereby lf lL were under
Lhe clrcumsLances Lhe duLy of Lhe defendanL or Lhe foreman Lo warn 8raullo 1amayo as Lo Lhe dangers lncldenL Lo such work and
lnsLrucL hlm how Lhe work should be done ln order Lo avold accldenLs
As Lo wheLher lL was Lhe duLy of Lhe defendanL or Lhe superlnLendenL Lo Lhus warn and lnsLrucL 8raullo 1amayo lL ls urged LhaL no
such duLy was lmposed on elLher of Lhem because as Lhe danger of puLLlng ones flngers under Lhe knlfe was obvlous 8raullo
assumed all Lhe rlsks of Lhe work whlch he was ordered Lo do lL ls furLher urged LhaL Lhe defendanL ls noL llable because 8raullo
1amayo was noL ln Lhe exerclse of due care aL Lhe Llme he recelved Lhe ln[urles ln oLher words Lhe defendanL here lnLerposes Lhe
common law defense of assumpLlon of rlsks and conLrlbuLory negllgence Some confuslon has arlsen wlLh reference Lo Lhese Lwo
defenses 1he Supreme CourL of Lhe unlLed SLaLes explalned Lhe dlsLlncLlon beLween Lhe Lwo ln Lhe followlng language ln Lhe recenL
case of Seaboard Alr Llne 8allway vs PorLon (233 u S 492 303)
1he dlsLlncLlon alLhough slmple ls someLlmes overlooked ConLrlbuLory negllgence lnvolves Lhe noLlon of some faulL or
breach of duLy on Lhe parL of Lhe employees and slnce lL ls ordlnarlly hls duLy Lo Lake some precauLlon for hls own safeLy
when engaged ln a hazardous occupaLlon conLrlbuLory negllgence ls someLlmes deflned as a fallure Lo use such care for hls
safeLy as ordlnarlly prudenL employees ln slmllar clrcumsLances would use Cn Lhe oLher hand Lhe assumpLlon of rlsk even
Lhough Lhe rlsk be obvlous may be free from any suggesLlon of faulL or negllgence on Lhe parL of Lhe employees 1he rlsks
may be presenL noLwlLhsLandlng Lhe exerclse of all reasonable care on ls parL Some employmenLs danger LhaL musL be
and ls confronLed ln Lhe llne of hls duLy such danger as are normally and necessarlly lncldenL Lo Lhe occupaLlon are
presumably Laken lnLo accounL ln flxlng Lhe raLe of wages And a workman of maLure years ls Laken Lo assume rlsks of Lhls

7

sorL wheLher he ls acLually aware of Lhem or noL 8uL rlsks of anoLher sorL noL naLurally lncldenL Lo Lhe occupaLlon may
arlse puL of Lhe fallure Lo provldlng a safe place of work and a sulLable and safe appllances for Lhe work 1hese Lhe
employee ls noL LreaLed as assumlng unLll he becomes aware of Lhe defecL and rlsk allke are so obvlous LhaL an ordlnarlly
prudenL person under Lhe clrcumsLance would have observed and appreclaLed Lhem 1hese dlsLlncLlons have been
recognlzed and applled ln numerous declslons of Lhls courL (ChocLaw Cklahoma Culf 8 Co vs Mcuade 191 u S 64
68 Schlemmer vs 8uffalo 8ochesLer lLLsburg 8y Co 220 u S 390 396 1ex ac 8y Co vs Parvey 228 u S 319
321 Clla valley 8y Co vs Pall 232 u S 94 102 and cases clLed)
ln SouLhern 8y Co vs CrockeLL (234 u S 723) Lhe Supreme CourL of Lhe unlLed SLaLes ln passlng upon Lhe quesLlon as Lo whaL
effecL Lhe lederal Lmployers LlablllLy AcL of Aprll 22 1908 has had upon Lhe common law defense of assumpLlon of rlsks sald
upon Lhe merlLs we of course susLaln Lhe conLenLlon LhaL by Lhe employers LlablllLy AcL Lhe defense of assumpLlon of rlsk
remalns as aL common law savlng ln Lhe cases menLloned ln secLlon 4 LhaL ls Lo say Any case where Lhe vlolaLlon by such
common carrler of any sLaLuLe enacLed for Lhe safeLy of employees conLrlbuLed Lo Lhe ln[ury or deaLh of such employee
ln Lngland lL was sald ln Lhe case of 1homas vs CuarLermalne (18 C 8 u 683) LhaL Lhe acL had noL varlaLed Lhe effecL of Lhe maxlm
voleotl ooo flt lojotlo so far as lL lnvolves Lhe ordlnary rlsks lnherenL ln Lhe parLlcular employmenL 1o Lhe same effecL ls CMalley vs
SouLh 8osLon Cas LlghL Co (138 Mass 133) 8lrmlngham 8y LlecLrlc Co vs Allen (99 Ala 339) WhlLcomb vs SLandard Cll Co
(133 lns 313) 1here has been however a noLlceable dlfference ln Lhe appllcaLlon of Lhe docLrlne ln favor of Lhe workman slnce Lhe
enacLmenL of Lhe Lmployers LlablllLy AcL buL Lhls change does noL affecL Lhe lssues lnvolved ln Lhe lnsLanL case So lL ls qulLe clear
LhaL Lhe LeglslaLure ln enacLlng AcL no 1874 lnLended Lo esLabllsh ln Lhls [urlsdlcLlon lf lL dld noL already exlsL Lhe defense of
assumpLlon of rlsks LhaL ls Lhe servanL assumes such dangers as are normally and necessarlly lncldenL Lo Lhe occupaLlon
AL common law Lhe defense of conLrlbuLory negllgence ls always avallable ln acLlons for compensaLlon for negllgence and lf proved
defeaLs Lhe acLlon 1he AcL has noL deprlved Lhe employer of Lhls defense (Palsburys Laws of Lngland vol 20 p 138) ln
MassachuseLLs lL was sald LhaL assumlng Lhe negllgence of Lhe superlnLendenL Lhe servanL could noL recover lf he were gullLy of
conLrlbuLory negllgence (8egan vs Lombard 192 Mass 319) 1hls docLrlne however has been more recenLly parLlally abrogaLed
by sLaLuLes under Lhe lederal Lmployers LlablllLy AcL of Aprll 22 1908 (33 SLaL 63 u S Comp SLaL Supp 1911 p 1322) Lhe
defense of conLrlbuLory negllgence ls abrogaLed ln all lnsLances where Lhe employers vlolaLlon of a sLaLuLe enacLed for Lhe safeLy
of hls employees conLrlbuLes Lo Lhe ln[ury And ln several sLaLes Lhe docLrlne of comparaLlve negllgence as Lo some lndusLrles has
been esLabllshed by sLaLuLe (Cerezo vs ALlanLlc Culf aclflc Co sopto and cases clLed) 8uL such ls noL Lhe case ln Lhls
[urlsdlcLlon ln so far as Lhe appllcaLlon of AcL no 1874 ls concerned
1haL Lhe defense of conLrlbuLory negllgence as lL ls undersLood ln Lhe unlLed SLaLes ls recognlzed ln Lhe AcL (AcL no 1874)
wlLh all lLs force and effecL ls clear because Lhe flrsL secLlon requlres as an essenLlal requlslLe LhaL Lhe employee be ln Lhe
exerclse of due care aL Lhe Llme of Lhe ln[ury ln order Lo hold Lhe employer llable for damages (Cerezo vs ALlanLlc Culf
aclflc Co supra)
1he Clvll Code does noL recognlzed such a compleLe defense (8akes vs ALlanLlc Culf aclflc Co 7 hll 8ep 339 366 Lades vs
ALlanLlc Culf aclflc Co 19 hll 8ep 361)
Whlle Lhe defenses of assumpLlon of rlsks and conLrlbuLory negllgence are avallable Lo masLers ln acLlons for personal ln[urles
broughL under AcL no 1874 Lhese defenses have Lhelr llmlLaLlons when lnLerposed ln acLlons for personal ln[urles of mlnor or lnfanL
employees 1hese llmlLaLlons resL upon Lhe wellesLabllshed prlnclple LhaL lL ls Lhe duLy of masLers or Lhelr superlnLendenLs Lo warn
such employees as Lo Lhe dangers of Lhe work and lnsLrucL Lhem as Lo Lhe manner of dolng Lhe work ln order Lo avold accldenLs
1he masLer ls bound Lo warn and lnsLrucL hls servanL as Lo all dangers whlch he knows or ln Lhe exerclse of reasonable care
oughL Lo know and whlch he has reason Lo belleve Lhe servanL does noL know and would noL by Lhe exerclse of reasonable
care dlscover
1he duLy conLlnues durlng Lhe employmenL and cannoL be delegaLed by Lhe masLer (uresser on Lmployers LlablllLy sec
99)

8

ln cases where Lhe servanL assumes Lhe rlsks Lhere ls no duLy on Lhe parL of Lhe masLer Lo warn or lnsLrucL hlm ln regard Lo Lhe
work 1he obllgaLlon of warnlng ls lmposed malnly for Lhe sake of Lhe young who have noL Lhe experlence or power Lo look ouL for
Lhemselves whlch are Lo be expecLed ln adulLs o ln Lhe case of adulLs where Lhere are concealed defecLs (8oblnska vs Lyman
Mllls 174 Mass 432 433 Cneal vs Chlcago l C 8y Co 132 lnd 110)
And lL ls clear LhaL ln respecL Lo all maLLers whereln a young and lnexperlenced employee ls compeLenL Lo undersLand and avold
Lhe dangers such employee sLands upon Lhe same fooLlng wlLh an experlenced adulL (Levey vs 8lgelow 6 lnd App 677)
1he dlsLlncLlon beLween Lhe adulL and Lhe chlld becomes lmporLanL when lL ls necessary Lo presume knowledge from Lhe
characLer of Lhe danger and deLermlne wheLher lL was obvlous Lo a person of Lhe plalnLlffs apparenL capaclLy (uresser on
Lmployers LlablllLy sec 99)
1he dangers of a parLlcular poslLlon or mode of dolng work are ofLen apparenL Lo a person of capaclLy of knowledge of Lhe sub[ecL
whlle oLher from youLh lnexperlence or wanL of capaclLy may fall Lo appreclaLes Lhem and a servanL even wlLh hls own consenL
ls noL Lo be exposed Lo such dangers unless wlLh lnsLrucLlons and cauLlons sufflclenL Lo enable hlm Lo comprehend Lhem and Lo do
hls work safely wlLh proper care on hls parL 1hls ls parLlcularly so when Lhe masLer employs for a hazardous work a chlld young
person or oLher person wlLhouL experlence and of lmmaLure [udgmenL ln such a case Lhe masLer ls bound Lo polnL ouL Lhe
dangers of whlch he has or oughL Lo have knowledge and glve Lo Lhe employee such lnsLrucLlons as wlll enable hlm Lo avold ln[ury
by Lhe exerclse of reasonable care unless boLh Lhe danger and Lhe means of avoldlng lL are apparenL ooJ wltblo tbe comptebeosloo
of tbe setvoot 8uL a masLer ls noL culpable slmply because he hlres a mlnor servanL for Lhe performance of dangerous duLles
Shearman and 8edfleld on negllgence (vol 1 sec 218) sLaLe Lhe rule as follows
Where a servanL ls seL aL dangerous work Lhe mere facL of hls mlnorlLy does noL render Lhe masLer llable for Lhe rlsk lf Lhe
servanL has sufflclenL capaclLy Lo Lake care of hlmself and knows and can properly appreclaLe Lhe rlsk
1he followlng sLaLemenL of Lhe law relaLlng Lo Lhe employmenL of young chlldren occurs ln 4 1hompson on negllgence sec 3826
and ls quoLed wlLh approval ln llLzgerald vs lurnlLure Co (131 n C 636)
1he law says 1hompson on neg 978 puLs upon a masLer when he Lakes an lnfanL lnLo hls servlce Lhe duLy of explalnlng
Lo hlm fully Lhe hazards and dangers connecLed wlLh Lhe buslness and of lnsLrucLlng hlm how Lo avold Lhem nor ls Lhls all
Lhe masLer wlll noL have dlscharged hls duLy ln Lhe regard unless Lhe lnsLrucLlons and precauLlons glven are so graduaLed Lo
Lhe youLh lgnorance and lnexperlence of Lhe servanL as Lo make hlm fully aware of Lhe danger Lo hlm and Lo place hlm
wlLh reference Lo lL ln subsLanLlally Lhe same sLaLe as lf he were an adulL
ln 1aylor vs WooLan (30 Am SL 8ep 200) lL was held LhaL
lL ls an acLlonable wrong for a person Lo place or employ a chlld of such lmmaLure [udgmenL as Lo be unable Lo comprehend
Lhe danger Lo work wlLh or abouL a machlne of a dangerous characLer llkely Lo produce ln[ury
WlLh reference Lo Lhe naLure and characLer of Lhe rlsks assumed by lnfanL employees Lhe courL ln Saller vs lrledman 8roLhers Shoe
Co (130 Mo App 712) sald
Cenerally an employee assumes such rlsks as are open and obvlous or whlch he would have observed he had used ordlnary
cauLlon buL chlldren are noL expecLed Lo observe closely Lhe consLrucLlon of machlnes aL whlch Lhey are puL Lo work or Lo
appreclaLe Lhe ordlnary rlsks lncldenL Lo Lhelr operaLlon and for Lhls reason are noL held Lo assume Lhe ordlnary rlsks of
Lhelr operaLlon or such rlsks as Lhey do noL percelve and apprehend and of whlch Lhey are noL lnformed and warned
agalnsL (vansler vs 8oc Co 108 Mo App l c 6289 84 S W 201 and cases clLed)
1he law wlLh reference Lo conLrlbuLory negllgence on Lhe parL of lnfanL employees ls falrly well seLLled ln Lhe unlLed SLaLes
ln Wynne vs Conklln (86 Ca 40) Lhe courL held LhaL wheLher Lhe plalnLlff a boy of 13 years of age knew of Lhe hazard or perll
wheLher he was of sufflclenL age and capaclLy Lo appreclaLe Lhe same and Lo provlde agalnsL danger are quesLlons of facL whlch
musL be lefL Lo Lhe conslderaLlon of a [ury

9

ln 8are vs Crane Creek Coal Co (61 W va 28) Lhe courL sald
lL ls acLlonable negllgence for an employer Lo engage and place aL a dangerous employmenL a mlnor who alLhough
lnsLrucLed lacks sufflclenL age and capaclLy Lo comprehend and avold Lhe dangers of Lhe employmenL lf Lhe employer has
or should have noLlce of Lhe mlnors age and lack of capaclLy (1homp on neg sec 4689 20 Am Lng Lnc Law supra
Colf vs norfolk W 8 Co supra 1 Shear 8edf neg supra)
ln Saller vs lrledman 8roLhers Shoe Co supra Lhe courL sald
lalnLlff on crossexamlnaLlon LesLlfled he knew lf hls flngers were caughL beLween Lhe upper and lower halves of Lhe
molder when Lhey came LogeLher Lhey would be crushed Cf course he knew Lhls Lhe slmplesL chlld would know as much lf
lL observed Lhe operaLlon of Lhe machlne buL lL mlghL noL and probably would noL make Lhe observaLlon lalnLlffs
evldence Lends Lo prove LhaL Lhough he knew hls flngers would be mashed lf caughL beLween Lhe Lwo halves of Lhe molder
when Lhey came LogeLher yeL he swore he never LhoughL of geLLlng hurL Pls evldence shows LhaL Lhe ldea LhaL he mlghL be
hurL never enLered hls mlnd unLll he was hurL whlle hls evldence shows he knew he mlghL be hurL ln Lhe manner he was
hurL yeL he never LhoughL of or appreclaLed Lhe danger of geLLlng hurL ln LhaL manner lL ls because of Lhls very
LhoughLlessness and on accounL of Lhe lnexperlence of mlnors LhaL Lhe law does noL hold Lhem Lo Lhe exerclse of Lhe same
degree of care as lL requlres of adulLs
ln Lhe 8rand Case (64 lla 184) clLed ln Lhe recenL case of Coons vs rlLchard (L 8 A 1913 l 338) Lhe courL held
As a maLLer of facL an employees who ls an lnexperlenced youLh may noL be free from faulL when he ls ln[ured yeL ln law
hls youLh and lnexperlence may excuse hls faulL and when Lhe employer has placed hlm aL work Lhe dangers and rlsks of
whlch Lhe youLh does noL appreclaLe and Lhe youLh ls ln[ured because of Lhe dangers of Lhe work Lhe employer ls llable
1he courL ln Coons vs rlchard supra lays down Lhls rule
ln employlng a mlnor Lhe duLy devolves upon Lhe employer Lo fully lnsLrucL such employee and ln such cases Lhe masLer ls
bound Lo conslder Lhe age menLallLy and lack of capaclLy and experlence of hls lnfanL employee and make such
lnsLrucLlons so full and expllclL as Lo brlng Lhe dangers lncldenL Lo Lhe employmenL Lo Lhe compleLe comprehenslon of Lhe
mlnor 1he Lheory seems Lo be LhaL a mlnor presumably lgnoranL of Lhe use of machlnery or dangers lncldenL Lo hls
occupaLlon or Lo rlsks lncldenL Lo Lhe use of defecLlve machlnery would wlLhouL such lnsLrucLlons be exposed Lo Lhose
dangers whlch he could have avolded had hls masLer fully dlscharged Lhls duLy
1he lnfanL employees capaclLy ls Lhe crlLerlon of hls responslblllLy As he grows older he becomes more and more amenable Lo Lhe
rules of law ln respecL Lo assumpLlon of rlsk and conLrlbuLory negllgence appllcable Lo adulLs and wheLher such lnfanL employee has
assumed Lhe rlsks or been negllgenL are quesLlons Lo be answered by Lhe [ury ln Lhe unlLed SLaLes and by Lhe courLs ln Lhls
[urlsdlcLlon
1here ls anoLher polnL lon Lhe case aL bar whlch should be Laken lnLo conslderaLlon and whlch bears upon Lhe defendanLs defenses
of assumpLlon of rlsks and conLrlbuLory negllgence and LhaL ls Lhe ln[urles dld noL occur whlle 8raullo 1amayo was engaged ln Lhe
parLlcular work and class of work for whlch he was employed Cn Lhe conLrary he was aL Lhe Llme engaged ln a work ouLslde Lhe
ordlnary conLracL of employmenL and wholly dlsconnecLed wlLh lL 1o plck from plles of wood from whlch Lhe sLrlps used ln Lhe
manufacLure of maLch boxes were made and selecL Lhe besL pleces ls a very dlfferenL Lhlng from asslsLlng ln keeplng Lhe machlne
clean ln order LhaL lL would noL be obsLrucLed ln lLs proper worklng Whlle Lhe record ls sllenL as Lo who made Lhe conLracL of
employmenL yeL Laklng lnLo conslderaLlon Lhe age of Lhe boy and Lhe lnLeresL whlch Lhe faLher was Laklng ln hls welfare we may aL
leasL presume LhaL Lhe faLher consenLed Lo Lhe boys enLerlng Lhe facLory and dolng Lhe ordlnary work whlch he had been engaged
ln before he was ordered Lo work aL Lhe machlne and Lhe faLher ln so dolng had Lhe rlghL Lo presume LhaL nelLher Lhe defendanL
nor Lhose who represenLed hlm would expose hls son Lo such perlls lf Lhe order had been glven Lo a person of maLure years who
was noL engaged Lo do such work alLhough en[olned Lo obey Lhe dlrecLlons of Lhe foremen lL mlghL wlLh some posslblllLy be
argued LhaL he should have dlsobeyed lL as he musL have known LhaL lLs execuLlon was aLLendanL wlLh danger or lf he chose Lo
obey LhaL order he Look upon hlmself Lhe rlsks lncldenL Lo such work 8ur 8raullo 1amayo occupled a very dlfferenL poslLlon Pe was
a mere chlld wlLhouL as we have sald any experlence ln LhaL klnd of work and noL famlllar wlLh Lhe machlnery

10

ln unlon aclflc 8allroad Co vs lorL (84 u S 333) lorL broughL sulL Lo recover damages for ln[ury Lo hls son age 16 years resulLlng
ln Lhe loss of an arm whlle ln Lhe employmenL of Lhe rallroad company 1he boy was employed ln Lhe machlne shop as a workman or
a helper under Lhe superlnLendence and conLrol of one ColleLL and had been chlefly engaged ln recelvlng and puLLlng away
mouldlngs as Lhey came from a moldlng machlne AfLer Lhe servlce had been conLlnued for a few monLhs Lhe boy by order of
ColleLL ascended a ladder resLlng on a shafL for Lhe purpose of ad[usLlng a belL by whlch a porLlon of Lhe machlnery was propelled
and whlch had goLLen ouL of place Whlle engaged ln an endeavor Lo execuLe Lhe order hls arm was caughL ln Lhe rapldly revolvlng
machlnery and Lorn from hls body 1he ln[ury found LhaL he had been engaged Lo serve under ColleLL as a workman or helper and
was requlred Lo obey hls orders LhaL Lhe order by ColleLL Lo Lhe boy (ln carrylng ouL whlch he losL hls arm) was noL wlLhln Lhe scope
of hls duLy and employmenL buL was wlLhln LhaL of ColleLLs LhaL Lhe order was noL a reasonable one LhaL lLs execuLlon was
aLLended wlLh hazard Lo llfe and llmb and LhaL a prudenL man would noL have ordered Lhe boy Lo execuLe lL A verdlcL and
[udgemenL ln favor of lorL was susLalned
Applylng Lhe foregolng prlnclples whlch are founded upon reason and [usLlce Lo Lhe case under conslderaLlon we conclude LhaL Lhe
Lrlal courL dld noL err ln re[ecLlng Lhe defenses of assumpLlon of rlsks and conLrlbuLory negllgence lnLerpose by Lhe defendanL
We now come Lo Lhe conslderaLlon of damages As above sLaLed Lhe record falls Lo dlsclose Lo whaL exLenL lf any Lhe earnlng
capaclLy of 8raullo 1amayo has been dlmlnlshed by reason of Lhe ln[urles Pe could noL Lherefore recover any amounL lf Lhls acLlon
had been broughL under Lhe Clvll Code as Lhe servlces for medlcal aLLendance and salary durlng Lhe conflnemenL have been pald by
Lhe defendanL (Marcelo vs velasco 11 hll 8ep 287 Algarra vs Sande[as 27 hll 8ep 284) 8uL Lhls courL has never held LhaL
sllghL lameness or permanenL ln[urles and paln and sufferlng are noL elemenLs of damages buL slmply LhaL damages cannoL be
allowed for Lhe former unless Lhe exLenL of Lhe dlmlnuLlon of Lhe earnlng power or capaclLy ls how and LhaL Lhe Clvll Code does noL
lnclude damages for Lhe laLLer
1he Lngllsh rule as Lo Lhe measure of damages whlch may be awarded for personal ln[urles ls sLaLed ln Palsburys Laws of Lngland
(vol 10 p 323) as follows
ln acLlons for personal ln[urles wheLher such acLlons are founded on breach of conLracL Lo carry safely or upon negllgence
Lhe [ury are Lo award damages noL only for Lhe acLual pecunlary loss occasloned by Lhe ln[ury buL also for Lhe paln and
sufferlng of Lhe plalnLlff and Lhe dlmlnuLlon of hls capaclLy for Lhe en[oymenL of llfe as well as ln respecL of Lhe probable
lnablllLy of Lhe plalnLlff Lo earn an lncome equal Lo LhaL whlch he has earned ln Lhe pasL and Lhe probablllLy LhaL buL for Lhe
ln[ury Lhe plalnLlff mlghL have earned an lncreaslng lncome ls Lo be Laken lnLo accounL
Shearman and 8edfleld on Lhe Law of negllgence (vol 3 p 1994 6Lh ed) ln dlscusslng Lhe measure of damages for personal
ln[urles say
ln an acLlon for negllgenL ln[ury Lo Lhe person of Lhe plalnLlff he may recover Lhe expense of hls cure Lhe value of Lhe Llme
losL by hlm durlng hls dlsablllLles and a falr compensaLlon for Lhe bodlly and menLal sufferlng caused by Lhe ln[ury as well
as for any permanenL reducLlon of hls power Lo earn money provlded of course LhaL such damage ls a proxlmaLe resulL of
Lhe ln[ury As already sLaLed allowance should be made for all such damages fuLure as well as pasL lf reasonably cerLaln Lo
occur (ClLlng numerous auLhorlLles lncludlng varlous declslons of Lhe Supreme CourL of Lhe unlLed SLaLes)
As Lhese rules lf noL excluslvely upon Lhe AngloAmerlcan common law lL becomes necessary Lo lnqulre [usL whaL changes lf any
have been broughL abouL by Lhe enacLmenL of Lhe Lmployers LlablllLy AcLs
uresser on Lmployers LlablllLy secLlon 18 says
Sub[ecL Lo Lhe llmlLaLlon upon Lhe amounL damages are Lo be measured ln accordance wlLh Lhe commonlaw rules
8enos Lmployers LlablllLy AcLs (2nd ed) secLlon 186 says
1he MassachuseLLs sLaLuLe llmlLs Lhe amounL of damages recoverable by an employee when hls ln[ury does noL resulL ln
deaLh Lo a sum noL exceedlng four Lhousand dollars lL does noL prescrlbe any crlLerlon for esLlmaLlng Lhe amounL buL
leaves Lhe quesLlon Lo be seLLled upon general prlnclples of law

11

And furLher on (sec 198) Lhe same auLhor sLaLes
ln Alabama lL has been declded ln an acLlon under lLs Lmployers LlablllLy AcL LhaL such (Lxemplary or punlLlve) damages
are noL recelvable where Lhe ln[ury resulLs ln deaLh 1he sLaLuLe does noL llmlL Lhe amounL of damages recoverable and Lhe
measure of damages ls deLermlned upon commonlaw prlnclples
LabaLLs MasLer and ServanL (2d ed vol 3 sec 1730) lays down Lhls rule
1he provlslons speclfylng Lhe amounL recoverable by an ln[ured servanL do noL glve a measure of damages buL merely flx a
llmlL beyond whlch Lhe [ury cannoL award compensaLlon WlLhln LhaL llmlL Lhe measure of damages ls lefL Lo be deLermlned
upon Lhe ordlnary prlnclples whlch regulaLe Lhe assessmenL of Lhe lndemnlLy ln acLlons for personal ln[urles
SecLlon 1 of Lhe lederal Lmployers LlablllLy AcL (AcL of Congress of Aprll 22 1908) provldes 1haL every common carrler by rallroad
whlle engaglng ln commerce beLween any of Lhe several SLaLes or 1errlLorles shall be llable ln damages Lo any person sufferlng
ln[ury whlle he ls employed by such carrler ln such commerce 1he Supreme CourL of Lhe unlLed SLaLes ln Mlchlgan CenLral 8
8 Co vs vreeland (227 u S 39 63) ln referrlng Lo Lhe measure of damages recoverable under Lhe AcL sald
lL (Lhe AcL) plalnly declares Lhe llablllLy of Lhe carrler Lo lLs ln[ured servanL lf he had survlved he mlghL have recovered such
damages as would have compensaLed hlm for hls expense loss of Llme sufferlng and dlmlnlshed earnlng power
And ln SL Louls lrom MLn 8y vs CrafL (237 u S 648) Lhe Supreme CourL of Lhe unlLed SLaLes susLalned a [udgmenL ln an acLlon
broughL under Lhe lederal Lmployers LlablllLy AcL of Lhe SLaLe courL ln favor of Lhe faLher of Lhe deceased employee for $6000
belng $1000 for Lhe pecunlary loss Lo Lhe faLher and $3000 for Lhe paln and sufferlng of Lhe deceased
WhaL ls Lhe scope of Lhe word damages as used ln AcL no 1874? uld Lhe LeglslaLure lnLend LhaL Lhe measure of damages should be
Lhe same as LhaL ln Lhe unlLed SLaLes from Lhe counLry Lhe AcL was copled or dld lL lnLend LhaL Lhe recovery should be llmlLed Lo
Lhose elemenLs of damages provlde for by Lhe Clvll Code ln personal ln[ury cases?
ln deLermlnlng Lhese quesLlons lL musL be borne ln mlnd LhaL Lhe lnLenL of Lhe LeglslaLure ls Lhe law LhaL Lhe leglslaLlve
meanlng ls Lo be exLracLed from Lhe sLaLuLe as a whole lLs clauses are noL Lo be segregaLed buL every parL of a sLaLuLe ls Lo
be consLrued wlLh reference Lo every oLher parL and every word and phrase ln connecLlon wlLh lLs conLexL and LhaL
consLrucLlon soughL whlch glves effecL Lo Lhe whole of Lhe sLaLuLe lLs every word LhaL Lhe hlsLory of Lhe sLaLuLe from Lhe
Llme lL was lnLroduced unLll lL was flnally passed may afford ald Lo lLs consLrucLlon LhaL where one leglslaLure adopLs
wlLhouL change of phraseology or wlLh only a merely lmmaLerlal change a leglslaLlve acL of anoLher [urlsdlcLlon lf
anLecedenL Lo lLs adopLlon Lhe sLaLuLe has recelved a seLLled consLrucLlon ln Lhe [urlsdlcLlon from whlch adopLed Lhe
LeglslaLure ls presumed Lo have adopLed Lhe consLrucLlon along wlLh Lhe sLaLuLe and LhaL a remedlal sLaLuLe ls Lo be
llberally consLrued Lo accompllsh Lhe purpose of lLs enacLmenL (vol 11 Lncyclopedla of unlLed SLaLes Supreme CourL
8eporLs under ConsLrucLlon and cases clLed)
ln Cerezo vs ALlanLlc Culf aclflc Co (supra) Lhe courL sald
We do noL doubL LhaL lL was prlor Lo Lhe passage of AcL no 1874 and sLlll ls Lhe duLy of Lhe employer ln Lhls [urlsdlcLlon Lo
perform Lhose duLles ln reference Lo provldlng reasonably safe places and safe and sulLable ways works and machlnery
eLc ln and abouL whlch hls employees are requlred Lo work whlch under Lhe common law of Lngland and Amerlca are
Lermed personal duLles and whlch ln Lhe unlLed SLaLes are held Lo be such LhaL Lhe employer cannoL delegaLe hls
responslblllLy and llablllLy Lo hls subordlnaLes (8akes vs ALlanLlc Culf aclflc Co 7 hll 8ep 339)
1he employer or masLer also lmplledly agrees Lo furnlsh compeLenL workmen (arLlcle 1903 of Lhe Clvll Code Chaves and Carcla vs
Manlla LlecLrlc 8 8 LlghL Co 31 hll 8ep 47) 1herefore Lhe masLer under Lhe Clvll Code can defend agalnsL an acLlon by hls
servanL by provlng hls own freedom from negllgence LhaL Lhe negllgence of Lhe servanL was Lhe lmmeJlote coose of tbe lojoty or
LhaL Lhe accldenL happened Lhrough one of Lhe ordlnary rlsks of employmenL Cn Lhe oLher hand Lhe servanL can recover a porLlon
of Lhe damages resulLlng from Lhe ln[urles alLhough he may be gullLy of conLrlbuLory negllgence (8akes vs ALlanLlc Culf ac Co
supra) And Lhe Clvll Code does noL flL Lhe maxlmum amounL of Lhe recovery

12

AcL no 1874 should be llberally consLrued ln favor of employees 1he maln purpose of Lhe AcL as lLs LlLle lndlcaLes was Lo exLend
Lhe llablllLy of employers and Lo render Lhem llable ln damages for cerLaln classes of personal ln[urles for whlch Lhey are noL llable
under Lhe Clvll Code And one of Lhese classes of cases ls LhaL where ln[urles are cause Lo employees Lhrough Lhe negllgence of Lhe
masLers superlnLendenL alLhough Lhe masLer may have used due care ln Lhe selecLlon of hls superlnLendenL 1o Lhls exLenL Lhe
masLers llablllLy or responslblllLy has ln facL been exLended 8uL Lhe defense of conLrlbuLory negllgence as lL ls undersLood ln Lhe
unlLed SLaLes ls recognlzed ln Lhe AcL wlLh all lLs force and effecL as Lhe flrsL secLlon requlres as an essenLlal requlslLe Lo recovery
LhaL Lhe employee be ln Lhe exerclse of due care aL Lhe Llme of Lhe ln[ury 1he AcL does noL recognlze Lhe rule of comparaLlve
negllgence lL flxes Lhe maxlmum amounL whlch Lhe ln[ured servanL may recover As Lo Lhese maLLers Lhe AcL resLrlcLs Lhe masLers
llablllLy And lf Lhe measure of damages ls llmlLed Lo conform wlLh Lhe Clvll Code Lhe masLers llablllLy would be furLher resLrlcLed
lf reference musL be made Lo Lhe AngloAmerlcan common law Lo deflne Lhe rlghLs and duLles of masLer and servanLs as above
lndlcaLed whaL reasons exlsL for saylng LhaL Lhe LeglslaLure lnLended LhaL Lhe courLs musL look Lo Lhe Clvll code for Lhe meanlng and
scope of Lhe word damages a word accordlng Lo Lhe orlgln and hlsLory of Lhe AcL of purely Lngllsh orlgln dlfferenL ln lLs scope
from Lhe Spanlsh word Joo? lL ls sald LhaL Lhe AcL ls an Lmployers LlablllLy AcL and noL a law of damages 1hls conLenLlon ls
wlLhouL foundaLlon ln law because Lo exLend and regulaLe Lhe responslblllLy of employers means Lo enlarge Lhelr pecunlary
llablllLy oLherwlse Lhe phrase would be meanlngless Cnes responslblllLy ls hls llablllLy or obllgaLlon 1he AcL ls remedlal 8y
remedlal ls noL meanL LhaL lL perLalns Lo a remedy ln Lhe sense of procedure such as Lhe characLer and form of Lhe acLlon Lhe
admlsslblllLy of evldence eLc 1he AcL deflnes cerLaln rlghLs whlch lL wlll ald and speclfles Lhe way ln whlch lL wlll ald Lhem So far as
lL deflnes Lhereby creaLlng lL ls subsLanLlve law So far as lL provldes a meLhod of aldlng and proLecLlng lL ls ad[ecLlve law or
procedure 1he rlghL Lo damages ls Lhe essence of Lhe cause of acLlon lL ls a subsLanLlve rlghL granLed by Lhe AcL 1ake Lhls away and
Lhe ln[ured employee has noLhlng of value lefL no one ln Lhls counLry has a vesLed lnLeresL ln any rule of Lhe Clvll Code and Lhe greaL
offlce of Lhe AcL ls Lo remedy defecLs ln Lhe Clvll Code rules as Lhey are developed
1he Congress of Lhe unlLed SLaLes ln conferrlng upon Lhe personal represenLaLlve of a deceased person whose deaLh was Lhe resulL
of a wrongful acL neglecL or faulL of any person or corporaLlon ln Lhe ulsLrlcL of Columbla a rlghL of acLlon for damages provlded
LhaL ln no case shall Lhe recovery under Lhls AcL exceed Lhe sum of $10000 (31 SLaL aL Large 1394 chap 834) 1he lederal
Lmployers llablllLy AcL referred Lo above does noL llmlL Lhe amounL of damages whlch may be recovered ln acLlons broughL
Lhereunder ln Pyde vs SouLhern 8allway Co (31 App u C 466) Lhe courL held LhaL Lhe recovery under Lhe lasL named AcL was noL
llmlLed Lo $10000 as provlded ln Lhe former AcL 1o Lhe same effecL ls Lhe case of uevlne vs C 8 l 8 8 Co (266 lll 248)
1he lnevlLable concluslon ls Lherefore LhaL Lhe LeglslaLure lnLended LhaL Lhe measure of damages ln personal ln[ury cases broughL
under AcL no 1874 shall be Lhe same as LhaL ln Lhe counLry from whlch Lhe AcL was Laken 1he resulL ls LhaL 8raullo 1amayo ls
enLlLled Lo recover Lhrough hls guardlan oJ lltem damages for paln and sufferlng and permanenL ln[ury such damages belng as
Lhey are Lhe approxlmaLe resulL of Lhe ln[urles 8odlly dlsflguremenL ls lncluded ln hls permanenL ln[ury lL needs no proof Lo show
LhaL Lhe severlng of Lhe rlng flnger aL Lhe flrsL [olnL caused paln and sufferlng and a permanenL ln[ury and bodlly dlsflguremenL
alLhough sllghL 1he facL LhaL damages for such ln[urles cannoL be ascerLalned wlLh maLhemaLlcal exacLness does noL and should noL
defeaL recovery for a reasonable amounL
ln Cagnon vs klauderWeldon uyelng Mach Co (174 led 8ep 477) Lhe plalnLlff was awarded $4000 1hls was reduced Lo $3000
Lhe courL saylng
As Lo Lhe damages Lhere was no evldence LhaL Cagnon has recelved less wages slnce hls ln[ury Lhan he dld before Pe was
ouL noLhlng Pls wages were conLlnued whlle lald up and Lhen he was glven employmenL by defendanL and laLer by oLhers
aL no less wages Lhan he had been recelvlng 8uL he suffered paln and permanenL dlsflguremenL of one hand Pe losL Lwo
flngers and LhaL parL of Lhe hand lmmedlaLely below or behlnd Lhem Pls power Lo llfL and handle Lhlngs ls lnLerfered wlLh
and lessened ln some sLaLlons or buslnesses hls earnlng power or ablllLy Lo perform hls duLles would noL be lnLerfered wlLh
aL all ln oLhers lL would be maLerlally WhaL hls fuLure wlll demand of hlm cannoL be foreLold As a mechanlcal blacksmlLh
hls ablllLy Lo do work handle Lhlngs ls lmpalred l do noL Lhlnk Lhe [ury was affecLed by passlon or pre[udlce agalnsL
corporaLlons 1hey were carefully cauLloned agalnsL Lhls Whlle damages ln such cases are largely dlscreLlonary wlLh a [ury
sLlll LhaL dlscreLlon ls always wlLhln Lhe conLrol of Lhe courL 1he paln and sufferlng ln Lhls case was noL of long conLlnuance
Lhe dlsflguremenL ls conflned Lo Lhe one hand Lhe arm ls noL ln[ured Lhe plalnLlff can plck up and handle arLlcles and
handle all ordlnary Lools l am of Lhe oplnlon LhaL Lhe damages were excesslve all Lhlngs consldered and LhaL Lhey should
be reduced Lo $3000

13

ln ClLy of anama vs helps (101 u S 433) Lhe courL sald
uamages ln such a case musL depend very much upon Lhe facLs and clrcumsLances proved aL Lhe Lrlal When Lhe sulL ls
broughL by Lhe parLy for personal ln[urles Lhere cannoL be any flxed measure of compensaLlon for Lhe paln and angulsh of
body and mlnd nor for Lhe permanenL ln[ury Lo healLh and consLlLuLlon buL Lhe resulL musL be lefL Lo Lurn malnly upon Lhe
good sense and dellberaLe [udgmenL of Lhe Lrlbunal asslgned by law Lo ascerLaln whaL ls a [usL compensaLlon for Lhe ln[urles
lnfllcLed
ln Cahagan vs AeromoLor Co (67 Mlnn 232) Lhe plalnLlff was awarded $1800 Lhls was reduced Lo $1200 Lhe courL saylng
1he only remalnlng quesLlon ls wheLher Lhe damages awarded are excesslve 1he boy one of elghL chlldren was beLween 8
and 9 years of age Aslde from dolng such chores abouL Lhe house as he was bldden by hls parenLs Lhe only work he had
ever engaged ln was selllng newspapers on Lhe vlllage sLreeLs Pls faLher was a buLhcer whose occupaLlon was Lo peddle
Lhrough Lhe counLry Lhe flesh of anlmals whlch he boughL and slaughLered 1he ln[ury Lo Lhe boy conslsLed of Lhe mangllng
of Lhe ends of Lhe rlng and mlddle flngers of Lhe lefL hand so as Lo requlre Lhelr ampuLaLlon Lhe one aL Lhe flrsL [olnL and
Lhe oLher [usL below Lhe flrsL [olnL 1hls was successfully done aL one operaLlon and Lhe flngers healed saLlsfacLorlly Cf
course Lhls was necessarlly accompanled by conslderable paln and Lhere ls some evldence Lo Lhe effecL LhaL Lhe ends of
Lhe flnger may always be somewhaL more senslLlve Lo heaL and cold Lhan lf noL ampuLaLed 1here was also Lhe oplnlon of
a physlclan LhaL Lhe muscles supplylng Lhose flngers wlll noL develop as fully as Lhey would lf Lhe whole flngers were Lhere
lL ls also Lrue LhaL Lhe ampuLaLlon of Lhe ends of Lhese flngers consLlLuLes someLhlng of a dlsflguremenL of Lhe person We
have no deslre Lo bellLLle Lhe rlghL whlch every one even ln Lhe humblesL walks of llfe has Lo Lhe possesslon of all hls
faculLles boLh menLal and physlcal unlmpalred buL we are compelled Lo Lhe concluslon LhaL ln any vlew of Lhe case Lhe
damages awarded Lo Lhe boy are excesslve 1here are cerLaln professlon such as LhaL of lnsLrumenLal muslc where Lhe loss
of Lhe ends of Lwo flngers even on Lhe lefL hand would be qulLe serlous buL lL ls selfevldenL wlLhouL Lhe ald of evldence
LhaL ln all Lhe ordlnary occupaLlons of llfe Lhe ln[ury Lo Lhe boy wlll be almosL lnappreclable We have ofLen had occaslon Lo
say LhaL Lhe quesLlon ls noL for whaL sum of money wlll compensaLe for lL as far as money can compensaLe aL all and
where a person asks for pecunlary compensaLlon he cannoL complaln lf Lhe loss ls esLlmaLed on a sLrlcLly pecunlary basls
ln 8lLLel vs SouLher lron Co (127 Mo App 463) ln reduclng Lhe award from $4300 Lo $3000 and ln dlsposlng of Lhe conLenLlon of
Lhe appellanL LhaL Lhere was no evldence LhaL Lhe plalnLlffs earnlng capaclLy had been dlmlnlshed by reason of Lhe ln[urles Lhe
courL sald
lalnLlff as sLaLed was a young man LwenLyone years old aL LhaL Llme of Lhe accldenL and as far as appears he made hls
llvlng by work slmllar Lo LhaL he was dolng when hurL he was noL a mechanlc buL a common laborer Pe LesLlfled LhaL he
had done no work from Lhe daLe of Lhe ln[ury Lo Lhe Llme of Lhe Lrlal LhaL prlor Lo sald Llme he had been earnlng nlne
dollars a week and ln hls oplnlon he was unable Lo do Lhe same klnd of work he had been dolng LhereLofore We Lhlnk lL ls
a maLLer of general knowledge LhaL a laborlng man who has Lhe Lhumb and foreflnger of hls rlghL hand mashed has
suffered a dlmlnuLlon of earnlng power
Slmllar holdlngs appear ln Clsen vs 1acoma SmelLlng Co (30 Wash 128) 8ommen vs Lmplre lurnlLure Mfg Co (1911 118 ac
924) uuskey vs Creen Lake Shlngle Co (31 Wash 143) 8arclay vs ugeL Sound Lumber Co (48 Wash 241) Adams vs eLerman
Mfg Co (47 Wash 484) 8all vs eLerman Mfg Co (47 Wash 633) !ohnson vs ClLy of 8ay ClLy (164 Mlch 231)
1hls oplnlon ls qulLe long necessarlly made so by Lhe lmporLance of Lhe quesLlons ralsed 1he [udgmenL belng sLrlcLly ln accordance
wlLh law and Lhe merlLs of Lhe case Lhe same ls hereby afflrmed wlLh cosLs agalnsL Lhe appellanL So ordered
1ottes cotsoo ooJ Atoollo II coocot




14

Separate Cp|n|ons

MCkLLAND dlssenLlng
1he proposlLlon sLaLed ln Lhe declslon of Lhe courL ln Lhls case Lo whlch l propose Lo dlrecL my aLLenLlon ls LhaL Lhe Lmployers
LlablllLy AcL was lnLended by Lhe LeglslaLure of Lhe hlllpplne lslands Lo be noL only a law enunclaLlng Lhe prlnclples of legal llablllLy
resulLlng from negllgenL acLs and omlsslons ln cerLaln cases buL a law governlng Lhe measure of damages ln such cases also 1he
process of reasonlng by whlch Lhe courL reached Lhls concluslon ls ln Lhe maln Lhls Lhe Lmployers LlablllLy AcL of Lhe hlllpplne
lslands ls a copy of Lhe Lmployers LlablllLy AcL of Lhe SLaLe of MassachuseLLs and says Lhe courL LhaL belng so lL necessarlly follows
LhaL Lhe LeglslaLure of Lhe hlllpplne lslands when lL copled and passed Lhe Lmployers LlablllLy AcL of Lhe SLaLe of MassachuseLLs
lnLended by vlrLue of Lhe mere acL of copylng Lo brlng Lo Lhe lslands noL only Lhe Lmployers LlablllLy AcL of Lhe sLaLe of
MassachuseLLs buL Lhe law of LhaL SLaLe governlng Lhe measure of damages also
l cannoL brlng myself Lo agree elLher wlLh Lhe poslLlon or wlLh Lhe argumenLs adduced Lo supporL lL noLhlng far shorL of an express
declaraLlon of Lhe hlllpplne LeglslaLure Lo LhaL effecL oughL Lo be held Lo abrogaLe Lhe seLLled prlnclples of law governlng Lhe
measure of damages ln personal ln[ury cases lald down ln Lhe Clvll Code and Lo subsLlLuLe ln place Lhereof Lhe law of a forelgn
counLry 1here ls no such declaraLlon ln Lhe Lmployers LlablllLy AcL l can flnd noLhlng ln Lhe AcL whlch ln Lhe remoLesL way would
suggesL ln my oplnlon an lnLenLlon Lo LhaL effecL
1he quesLlon under conslderaLlon arlses ln Lhls way A young boy worklng wlLh dangerous machlnery had Lhe ends of some of hls
flngers of one hand cuL off Cn Lhe Lrlal he proved no pecunlary or acLual damages no one dlspuLes Lhls 1he sole quesLlon ls
wheLher he can recover damages oLher Lhan pecunlary or acLual damages 1he Supreme CourL ln lLs oplnlon sLaLes expressly LhaL
under Lhe law of Lhe hlllpplne lslands as found ln Lhe Clvll Code he would noL be enLlLled Lo recover damages for paln sufferlng or
menLal angulsh and LhaL Lherefore under Lhe Clvll Code he could noL malnLaln Lhls acLlon as he could prove no damages aparL
from Lhose arlslng from paln and sufferlng 1he courL has however meL Lhls dlfflculLy by asserLlng as l have before lndlcaLed LhaL
Lhe law of damages of Lhe hlllpplne lslands does noL govern Lhe case aL bar for Lhe reason LhaL Lhe Lmployers LlablllLy AcL havlng
been Laken bodlly for Lhe sLaLe of MassachuseLLs and broughL Lo Lhe hlllpplne lslands lL necessarlly follows LhaL Lhe law of Lhe
SLaLe of MassachuseLLs qovetoloq tbe meosote of Jomoqes wos btooqbt olooq to tbe lslooJs wltb lt and LhaL lL ls Lhe law of Lhe sLaLe
of MassachuseLLs and noL Lhe Clvll Code whlch governs Lhe measure of damages ln Lhe hlllpplne lslands
As l have already sLaLed Lhe Supreme CourL holds ln Lhls very case LhaL under Lhe law of Lhe hlllpplne lslands Lhe plalnLlff ls noL
enLlLled Lo damages as he proved no damages excepL Lhose arlslng from paln and sufferlng lL says
We now come Lo Lhe conslderaLlon of damages As above sLaLed Lhe record falls Lo dlsclose Lo whaL exLenL lf any Lhe
earnlng capaclLy of 8raullo 1amayo has been dlmlnlshed by reason of Lhe ln[urles Pe could noL Lherefore recover any
amounL lf Lhls acLlon had been broughL under Lhe Clvll Code as Lhe servlces for medlcal aLLendance and salary durlng Lhe
conflnemenL have been pald by Lhe defendanL (Marcelo vs velasco 11 hll 8ep 287 Algarra vs Sande[as 27 hll 8ep
284) 8uL Lhls courL has never held LhaL sllghL lameness or permanenL ln[urles and paln and sufferlng are noL elemenLs of
damages buL slmply LhaL damages cannoL be allowed for Lhe former unless Lhe exLenL of Lhe dlmlnuLlon of Lhe earnlng
power or capaclLy ls shown and LhaL Lhe Clvll Code does noL lnclude damages for Lhe laLLer
8efore golng forward wlLh Lhe dlscusslon l regard lL necessary Lo examlne Lhe sLaLemenL conLalned ln Lhe lasL senLence of Lhe
quoLaLlon l confess LhaL l cannoL grasp lLs meanlng excepL ln parL 1he porLlon of Lhe sLaLemenL whlch l can noL undersLand ls Lhls
8uL Lhls courL has never held LhaL paln and sufferlng are noL elemenL of damages buL
slmply LhaL Lhe Clvll Code does noL lnclude damages for Lhe laLLer LhaL ls paln and sufferlng lf Lhe courL has held LhaL Lhe Clvll
Code does noL auLhorlze and Lherefore does noL permlL damages for paln and sufferlng and lf Lhe Clvll Code conLalns all Lhe law
of Lhe hlllpplne lslands on Lhe sub[ecL of damages whlch no one denles how can lL be sald LhaL Lhls courL has never held LhaL
paln and sufferlng are noL elemenLs of damages? 1hls courL has held agaln and agaln LhaL paln and sufferlng are noL an elemenL of
damage under Lhe law of Lhe hlllpplne lslands and has agaln and agaln refused Lo allow damages Lherefor (Marcelo vs velasco 11
hll 8ep 287 Algarra vs Sande[as 27 hll 8ep 284) 1he refusal was based on Lhe flndlng LhaL Lhere was no law ln Lhe hlllpplne
lslands auLhorlzlng damages Lo be glven upon LhaL ground 1he courL admlLs ln Lhe sLaLemenL quoLed LhaL lL has hereLofore held
LhaL Lhe Clvll Code does noL lnclude damages for Lhe laLLer LhaL ls for paln and sufferlng Pow Lhen ls lL posslble for Lhe courL

13

now Lo hold LhaL paln and sufferlng ote elemenLs of damage? And how can lL say LhaL Lhe courL has noL held LhaL paln and sufferlng
are noL elemenL of damage? 1he mere holdlng LhaL Lhere was no law ln Lhe hlllpplne lslands auLhorlzlng damages on such ground ls
of lLself a declaraLlon LhaL paln and sufferlng are noL an elemenL of damage lf Lhe courL has declared LhaL Lhere ls no law auLhorlzlng
rellef of a cerLaln klnd lL ls equlvalenL Lo a declaraLlon LhaL Lhe courLs are noL auLhorlzed Lo granL such rellef
l proceed wlLh Lhe dlscusslon of Lhe poslLlon Laken by Lhe courL on Lhe maln quesLlon
lL musL be sald aL Lhe ouLseL LhaL Lhe courL resLs lLs declslon malnly on Lhe sLaLemenL LhaL Lhe law of damages of MassachuseLLs
came here by vlrLue of Lhe mechanlcal acL of Lhe drafLsman of Lhe LeglslaLure of copylng a sLaLuLe of LhaL SLaLe a sLaLuLe by Lhe
way enLlrely dlfferenL from Lhe one whlch Lhls courL holds was broughL over So far as l can see Lhere ls no dlscusslon of Lhe
grounds of Lhls sLaLemenL no examlnaLlon of Lhe AcL copled no quoLaLlon of or even reference Lo any provlslon of law or sLaLuLe Lo
supporL Lhe allegaLlons noLhlng excepL a naked sLaLemenL of Lhe courL LhaL lL wos broughL over 1he conLenLlon LhaL Lhe mere
mechanlcal acL of Lhe copylng of Lhe Lmployers LlablllLy AcL of Lhe SLaLe of MassachuseLLs by Lhe hlllpplne LeglslaLure produced
oecessotlly Lhe momenLous resulL of repeallng Lhe law of Lhls counLry regulaLlng an lmporLanL sub[ecL and of lnLroduclng ln place
Lhereof Lhe law of MassachuseLLs appears on lLs face lL seems Lo me so unsound LhaL Lhe mosL agenL and powerful reason should
be asslgned Lo supporL lL 1he courL has neglecLed Lo refer Lo any AcL of Lhe hlllpplne LeglslaLure Lo any sLaLue or Lo any oLher law
Lo susLaln lLs asserLlon lL slmply says LhaL Lhe mete oct of copyloq tbe Mossocbosetts mployets lloblllty Act ls all LhaL was necessary
Lo enacL lnLo law noL Lhe MassachuseLLs Lmployers LlablllLy AcL by Lhe MassachuseLLs low of Jomoqes
1here ls posslbly one excepLlon Lo Lhe sLaLemenL LhaL Lhe courL has nelLher clLed nor referred Lo any sLaLuLe law declslon prlnclple
or cusLom Lo supporL so sLrange a Lheory lL has referred Lo Lhe word damages whlch lL found ln Lhe Lmployers LlablllLy AcL 8uL
LhaL ls all lL does noL even quoLe or clLe Lhe senLence ln whlch Lhe word appears lL ls wrenched from lLs seLLlng and Lorn form Lhe
conLexL and examlned as a Lhlng separaLe and aparL a specles wlLh no famlly or genus someLhlng for a phllologlsL buL noL for a
courL 1hls reference by Lhe courL Lo Lhe word damages and Lhe argumenL based upon LhaL lsolaLed word may be called an
excepLlon Lo or a quallflcaLlon of my sLaLemenL l heslLaLe Lo admlL lL for Lhe reference ls of such a naLure LhaL lL serves only Lo
prove Lhe correcLness of Lhe sLaLemenL lf Lhe courL could flnd noLhlng more ln Lhe AcL of Lhe hlllpplne LeglslaLure Lo supporL lLs
conLenLlon Lhan a lone word Laken from Lhe sLaLuLe Lhen ls my sLaLemenL l belleve more Lhan [usLlfled
1he quoLaLlon made from Lhe oplnlon of Lhe courL ls Lhe openlng sLaLemenL ln lLs argumenL Lo supporL Lhe proposlLlon LhaL Lhe
hlllpplne LeglslaLure broughL from Lhe SLaLe of MassachuseLLs wlLh Lhe Lmployers LlablllLy AcL Lhe MassachuseLLs law of damages
ln negllgence cases As l regard Lhls concluslon as erroneous l propose Lo follow Lhe sLeps of Lhe courL ln lLs argumenL for Lhe
purpose of deLermlnlng where Lhe dlfflculLy lles lmmedlaLely afLer Lhe sLaLemenL quoLed comes a dlscusslon of Lhe rule of damages
ln negllgence cases ln Lngland and ln Lhe varlous SLaLes of Lhe unlon and as seL down by Lhe lederal courLs Cases are clLed Lo show
LhaL paln and sufferlng are elemenL of damage under Lhe common law 1he courL quoLes from Lhe lederal Lmployers LlablllLy AcL of
Lhe unlLed SLaLes ln cases arlslng under lL Lo show LhaL Lhe rule of damages as lald down by Lhe lederal courLs lncludes
compensaLlon for paln and sufferlng lL ls Lo be noLed however LhaL when Lhe Supreme CourL was dlscusslng and applylng Lhe law
of damages ln Lhose cases lL was oot Jlscossloq lotetptetloq ot opplyloq tbe leJetol mployets lloblllty Act lL was consLrulng and
applylng Lhe law qovetoloq tbe meosote of Jomoqe and Lhe law of damage has no more relaLlon Lo Lhe law governlng Lhe prlnclples
of legal llablllLy Lhan Lhe law of ballmenLs has Lo Lhe law properLy lL musL be sald Lherefore LhaL Lhe whole dlscusslon of Lhe courL
concernlng Lhe measure of damages aL common law and lLs clLaLlons of and quoLaLlons from declslons of courLs on LhaL sub[ecL are
lmmaLerlal Lo Lhe dlscusslon of Lhe very flrsL proposlLlon necessary Lo be esLabllshed ln Lhls case Lo susLaln Lhe declslon of Lhls courL
and LhaL ls LhaL Lhe MassachuseLLs law governlng Lhe measure of damages ln personal ln[ury cases was broughL Lo Lhe hlllpplne
lslands by and along wlLh Lhe Lmployers LlablllLy AcL and ls now force here uotll lt ls estobllsbeJ tbot tbe Mossocbosetts low ls bete
lL ls ldle Lo dlscuss whaL LhaL law ls now whaL ls Lhe proof offered Lo demonsLraLe Lhe correcLness of Lhe conLenLlon LhaL Lhe
MassachuseLLs law of damages ls a parL of Lhe hlllpplne law? unLll LhaL conLenLlon ls shown Lo be correcL beyond quesLlon whaL
good l repeaL can resulL from a dlsqulslLlon on Lhe measure of damage aL common law? Agaln l ask whaL has been offered on LhaL
sub[ecL?
roceedlng wlLh lLs argumenL Lhe courL says
WhaL ls Lhe scope of Lhe word damages as used ln AcL no 1874 (Lhe Lmployers LlablllLy AcL)? uld Lhe LeglslaLure lnLend
LhaL Lhe measure of damages should be Lhe same as LhaL ln Lhe unlLed SLaLes from whlch counLry Lhe AcL was copled or
dld lL lnLend LhaL Lhe recovery should be llmlLed Lo Lhose elemenLs of damages provlded for by Lhe Clvll Code ln personal
ln[ury cases?

16

WlLh Lhls lnqulry before me l see no reason for Lhe exlsLence of Lhe prevlous sLeps ln Lhe dlscusslon Laken by Lhe courL WhaL may
have been Lhe law of damages as lald down by Lhe lederal courLs Lhe SLaLe courLs or Lhe Lngllsh courLs has noLhlng Lo do wlLh Lhe
dlscusslon as Lo wheLher Lhe LeglslaLure of Lhe hlllpplne lslands lnLroduced lnLo Lhls counLry Lhe law of damages of Lhe SLaLe of
MassachuseLLs 1he dlscusslon as Lo whaL ls Lhe measure of damages ln Lngland and ln Lhe varlous SLaLes of Lhe unlon would be
maLerlal as l have already sald only afLer Lhe proposlLlon had been esLabllshed LhaL Lhe law of damages of Lngland and of Lhe
unlLed SLaLes had been lmporLed lnLo Lhe hlllpplne lslands 8uL Lhe quesLlon wheLher LhaL law was acLually lmporLed lnLo Lhe
hlllpplne lslands has noLhlng Lo do wlLh Lhe quesLlon as Lo whaL LhaL law really ls
l noLe whaL l have before lnLlmldaLed LhaL Lhe courL does noL clLe Lhe provlslon or provlslons of Lhe Lmployers LlablllLy AcL of Lhe
hlllpplne lslands whlch shows LhaL Lhe law of damages of Lhe SLaLe of MassachuseLLs or of Lngland or of Lhe unlLed SLaLes was
broughL over Lo Lhe lslands along wlLh Lhe AcL lLself l should be lnLeresLed Lo have Lhe courL polnL ouL Lhe parLlcular provlslon on
whlch lL relles Lo accompllsh Lhe sLrlklng resulL whlch lLs declslon produces l confess l can flnd no provlslon whlch l can even
remoLely consLrue lnLo produclng such an effecL ln order LhaL Lhe whole AcL be before us l have reproduced lL ln a fooLnoLe
lncludlng Lhe LlLle
1
and an examlnaLlon of lL dlscloses lnsLanLly LhaL Lhere ls noL a provlslon ln lL whlch so far as l can [udge can be
held Lo lnLroduce lnLo Lhe hlllpplne lslands Lhe law of damages of Lhe SLaLe of MassachuseLLs or of any oLher sLaLe or counLry nor
can l obLaln such a resulL by vlewlng Lhe AcL as a whole 1he LlLle says LhaL lL ls An AcL Lo exLend and regulaLe Lhe responslblllLy of
employers for personal ln[urles and deaLhs suffered by Lhelr employees whlle aL work ln Lhe marglnal noLe of Lhe offlclal AcL lL ls
called Lmployers LlablllLy AcL All Lhe AcL does or purporLs Lo do ls Lo alLer ln some parLlcular Lhe ptloclples of leqol lloblllty
qovetoloq oeqllqeot octs ot omlssloos Lhen operaLlve ln Lhe hlllpplne lslands lL does noL Louch and does noL profess Lo Louch Lhe
legal prlnclples upon whlch Jomoqes ote ossesseJ ln such cases LhaL ls Lhe law governlng Lhe measure of Jomoqe 1he law
governlng legal llablllLy ls qulLe dlsLlncL and separaLe from Lhe law governlng damages 1he former Lells us wheLher an acLlon wlll lle
or noL Lhe laLLer Lells us how much plalnLlffs [udgmenL wlll be 1he former Lells us whaL musL be proved Lo esLabllsh llablllLy Lhe
laLLer how Lo prove Lhe amounL Lo recovered Whlle Lhe former lays down Lhe foundaLlon for Lhe laLLer Lhey are neverLheless
separaLe branches of Lhe law wholly unllke wholly aparL from each oLher and governed by prlnclples whlch have noLhlng ln
common 1hey are LreaLed separaLely by courLs LexL books and encyclopedlas 1hey have no more relaLlon Lo each oLher Lhan Lhe
law of wllls and Lhe law of waLers
1hls belng so how do Lhe followlng remarks of Lhe courL whlch lmmedlaLely follow Lhe lasL quoLaLlon asslsL lL Lo Lhe concluslon LhaL
Lhe law of damages of Lhe SLaLe of MassachuseLLs came Lo Lhe hlllpplne lslands wlLh Lhe Lmployers LlablllLy AcL?
ln deLermlnlng Lhese quesLlons lL musL be borne ln mlnd LhaL Lhe lnLenL of Lhe LeglslaLure ls Lhe law LhaL Lhe leglslaLlve
meanlng ls Lo be exLracLed from Lhe sLaLuLe as a whole lLs clauses are noL Lo be segregaLed buL every parL of a sLaLuLe ls Lo
be consLrued wlLh reference Lo every oLher parL and every word and phrase ln connecLlon wlLh lLs conLexL and LhaL
consLrucLlon soughL glves effecL Lo Lhe whole of Lhe sLaLuLe lLs every word
Speaklng generally l have no ob[ecLlon Lo Lhe prlnclples enunclaLed ln Lhls quoLaLlon 8uL lL seems Lo me Lhe courL has noL applled
Lhem lL would seem raLher LhaL Lhe courL has dlsregarded Lhem LeL us examlne AcL and admlL LhaL Lhe lnLenL of Lhe LeglslaLure ls
Lhe law LhaL Lhe leglslaLlve meanlng ls Lo be exLracLed from Lhe sLaLuLe as a whole LhaL lLs clauses are noL Lo be segregaLed
and LhaL we musL glve effecL Lo lLs every word and whaL ls Lhe resulL? Are we ln Lhe llghL of Lhese prlnclples Lo say LhaL Lhe
LeglslaLure lnLended Lo enacL a law governlng Lhe measure of damages ln Lhe hlllpplne lslands when Lhe LlLle whlch Lhe LeglslaLure
lLself gave Lo Lhe AcL for Lhe express purpose of Lelllng us ln a summary way whaL lL proposed Lo do shows LhaL lL Lended Lo deal
solely wlLh Lhe prlnclples of legal llablllLy and noL wlLh a dlsLlncL and separaLe branch of Lhe law known as Lhe measure of damage?
Are we Lo say Lhls when so far as my [udgmenL goes Lhe provlslons of Lhe AcL are ln absoluLe conformlLy wlLh lLs LlLle and boLh
whlch seem Lo refuLe Lhe conLenLlon LhaL Lhe LeglslaLure lnLended LhaL Lhe AcL ln addlLlon Lo belng a llablllLy AcL should also be an
AcL deallng wlLh Lhe measure of damage whlch should change ln a marked degree Lhe presenL law on LhaL sub[ecL? Can Lhe
LeglslaLure be sald Lo have lnLended such a sweeplng change? ls Lhere anyLhlng ln Lhe AcL whlch [usLlfles Lhe repeal of numerous and
lmporLanL arLlcles of Lhe Clvll Code and Lhe reversal of Lhe declslons of Lhe Supreme CourL lnLerpreLlng and supplylng Lhem? Where
ls Lhe provlslon ln Lhe AcL whlch declares LhaL Lhls counLry a counLry of Lhe 8oman law of Lhe clvll law of Lhe Spanlsh law shall be
aglLaLed and confounded by a fundamenLal change ln lLs cenLury old sysLem of damages ln personal ln[ury cases? 8ead Lhe law lLs
every word and Lhen say wheLher Lhe LeglslaLure lnLended LhaL one law of damages should apply Lo personal ln[urles susLalned by
one class of persons and a dlfferenL law Lo ln[urles susLalned by anoLher class of persons or LhaL a person who had boLh legs cuL off
Lhrough Lhe negllgence of hls employer should be able Lo obLaln damages for paln and sufferlng whlle hls broLher who had boLh
legs cuL off Lhrough Lhe negllgence of a rallroad company noL hls employer should noL be able Lo recover such damages?

17

lL seems Lo me LhaL such resulLs should noL be held Lo have been produced excepL upon Lhe clear and expllclL provlslons of Lhe
sLaLuLe Where are Lhese provlslon? ls noL Lhe lnvaslon of an esLabllshed and seLLled sysLem by a forelgn law of sufflclenL
lmporLance Lo requlre aL leasL a reference Lo Lhe speclflc auLhorlLy under whlch Lhe lnvaslon occurs? And lf Lhere ls any doubL abouL
Lhe auLhorlLy should Lhe lnvaslon be permlLLed Lo succeed?
8uL Lhe courL seems Lo Lhlnk LhaL lL has found a sufflclenL reason for Lhe lnvaslon lL says as l have already lnLlmaLed LhaL lL flnds
somewhere ln Lhe sLaLuLe Lhe word damages 1he dlscovery of Lhls word ls LhaL whlch provoked Lhe quesLlon puL by Lhe courL
already quoLed ln whlch lL asks WhaL ls Lhe scope of Lhe word damages as used ln AcL no 1874? uld Lhe LeglslaLure lnLend LhaL Lhe
measure of damages should be Lhe same as LhaL ln Lhe unlLed SLaLes from whlch counLry Lhe AcL was copled or dld lL lnLend LhaL
Lhe recovery should be llmlLed Lo Lhose elemenLs of damages provlded for by Lhe Clvll Code ln personal ln[ury cases?
1hese quesLlons are lmmedlaLely followed by Lhe sLaLemenL also quoLed of Lhe prlnclples governlng Lhe conducL of one who
deslres Lo ascerLaln Lhe lnLenL of Lhe LeglslaLure buL l am afrald LhaL Lhe courL dld noL follow Lhose prlnclples when lL selzed upon
Lhe lone word damages dlscovered ln Lhe AcL as Lhe Lallsman whlch would dlsclose Lhe lnLenL whlch governed Lhe hlllpplne
LeglslaLure when lL passed Lhe Lmployers LlablllLy AcL for whlle Lhe courL has [usL declared LhaL Lhe lnLenL of Lhe LeglslaLure ls Lo
be exLracLed from Lhe sLaLuLe os o wbole LhaL lLs words and clauses ote oot to be seqteqoteJ LhaL every parL ls to be
coosttoeJ wltb tefeteoce to evety otbet pott ooJ evety wotJ ooJ pbtose lo commoo wltb lts oelqbbots neverLheless lL selzes opoo
tbe sloqle wotJ Jomoqes ooJ opoo tbls wotJ seqteqoteJ ftom lts cootext ooJ wltboot eveo o tefeteoce to ooy otbet lloe ot
wotJ lo tbe stotote bases a docLrlne whlch changes ln large parL Lhe naLure of Lhe AcL 1he resulL Lhus obLalned vlolaLes lL seems Lo
me Lhe enacLlng clause desLroys Lhe dlsLlncLlon beLween legal llablllLy and measure of damage whlch Lhe AcL respecLs lnLroduces
lnLo Lhe hlllpplne lslands a new sysLem of law repeals lmporLanL provlslons of Lhe Clvll Code and makes un[usL dlsLlncLlons
beLween employees and oLher classes of persons equally deservlng
l cannoL agree Lo Lhls reasonlng whlch ls ln my [udgmenL Lhe only lLem of argumenL or dlscusslon ln Lhe oplnlon whlch ls dlrecLed Lo
Lhe polnL Lo whlch my dlssenL and dlscusslon refer
lf references musL be made Lo Lhe AngloAmerlcan common law Lo deflne Lhe rlghLs and duLles of masLer and servanLs as
above lndlcaLed whaL reasons exlsL for saylng LhaL Lhe LeglslaLure lnLended LhaL Lhe courLs musL look Lo Lhe Clvll Code for
Lhe meanlng and scope of Lhe word damages a word accordlng Lo Lhe orlgln and hlsLory of Lhe AcL of purely Lngllsh
orlgln dlfferenL ln lLs scope from Lhe Spanlsh word Joo? lL ls sald LhaL Lhe AcL ls an Lmployers LlablllLy AcL and noL a law
of damages 1hls conLenLlon ls wlLhouL foundaLlon ln law because Lo exLend and regulaLe Lhe responslblllLy of employers
means Lo enlarge Lhelr pecunlary llablllLy oLherwlse Lhe phrase would be meanlngless Cnes responslblllLy ls hls llablllLy or
obllgaLlon 1he AcL ls remedlal 8y remedlal ls noL meanL LhaL lL perLalns Lo a remedy ln Lhe sense of procedure such as Lhe
characLer and form of Lhe acLlon Lhe admlsslblllLy of evldence eLc 1he acL deflnes cerLaln rlghLs whlch lL wlll ald and
speclfled Lhe way ln whlch lL wlll ald Lhem So far as lL deflne Lhereby creaLlng lL ls subsLanLlve law So far as lL provldes a
meLhod of aldlng and proLecLlng lL ls ad[ecLlve law or procedure 1he rlghL Lo damage ls Lhe essence of Lhe cause of
acLlon lL ls a subsLanLlve rlghL granLed by Lhe AcL 1ake Lhls away and Lhe ln[ured employee has noLhlng of value lefL no
one ln Lhls counLry has a vesLed lnLeresL ln any rule of Lhe Clvll Code and Lhe greaL offlce of Lhe AcL ls Lo remedy defecLs ln
Lhe Clvll Code rules as Lhey are developed
LeL us examlne Lhe argumenL ln deLall We may sLarL ouL by doubLlng Lhe correcLness of Lhe lnferenLlal sLaLemenL found ln Lhe very
flrsL senLence of Lhe quoLaLlon l dld noL know LhaL lL was necessary Lo refer Lo Lhe AngloAmerlcan common law Lo deflne Lhe
rlghLs and duLles of masLer and servanL as lndlcaLed above l had supposed LhaL Lhe very purpose of Lhe Lmployers LlablllLy AcL
was Lo deflne Lhose rlghLs and duLles so far as Lhey relaLe Lo ln[urles occurlng Lo employees whlle aL work l had belleved LhaL Lhe
preclse ob[ecL of employers llablllLy acLs ln Lhe SLaLes was Lhe abrogaLlon of Lhe socalled AngloAmerlcan common law and of Lhe
Lmployers LlablllLy AcL of Lhe hlllpplne lslands Lo abrogaLe Lhe clvll law as conLalned ln Lhe Clvll Code by subsLlLuLlng ln lLs place a
sLaLuLe whlch speclflcally and ln deLall deflnes Lhose rlghLs and duLles Whlle Lhe sLaLuLe may be held Lo have glven an addlLlonal
remedy cerLalnly when Lhe remedy conferred by Lhe sLaLuLe ls selecLed by Lhe employee Lhe common law ln Lhe SLaLes Lhe clvll
law here ceases Lo operaLe l had supposed also LhaL where Lhere ls a sLaLuLe deallng wlLh a glven sub[ecL and whlch compleLely
covers lL Lhe sLaLuLe ls excluslvely LhaL Lo whlch we musL look Lo ascerLaln Lhe law on LhaL sub[ecL lL ls Lrue LhaL lf any word or
provlslon of Lhe sLaLuLe ls amblguous and needs lnLerpreLaLlon or consLrucLlon before lL can be applled Lhen we mlghL under
cerLaln clrcumsLances go Lo Lhe declslons of Lhe courLs of a forelgn sLaLe Lo ascerLaln whaL ldeas Lhey have expressed under slmllar
condlLlons 8uL no such reference ls permlLLed unless Lhe provlslons of Lhe sLaLuLe Lo be applled ln Lhe parLlcular case are so

18

amblguous and uncerLaln as Lo requlre lnLerpreLaLlon of consLrucLlon before appllcaLlon ls posslble 1he sLaLuLe ls Lhe law and Lhe
only law concernlng Lhe maLLer of whlch lL LreaLs
l musL Lherefore doubL Lhe correcLness of Lhe flrsL senLence of Lhe courLs only argumenL 1here ls no amblgulLy ln Lhose provlslons
of Lhe sLaLuLe appllcable Lo Lhe case aL bar no one clalms Lhere ls 1he courL asserLs none unLll we know whaL provlslons Lhe courL
has held appllcable we cannoL know wheLher Lhey are amblguous or noL 1he case before us ls a slmple one only Lhree quesLlons
belng lnvolved (llrsL) Was Lhe defendanLs superlnLendenL negllgenL ln placlng a chlld aL work wlLh dangerous machlnery?
(Second) Was Lhe chlld gullLy of conLrlbuLory negllgence? (1hlrd) Was Lhere damage proved and how much? 1he sLaLuLe speclflcally
covers every quesLlon of law ln Lhls case lL does noL of course cover Lhe quesLlons of facL nelLher does Lhe common law nor Lhe
clvll law 8uL lL covers every legal aspecL of he case and clearly and deflnlLely and wlLhouL amblgulLy lays down Lhe rules whlch
govern lL and l belleve lL Lo be erroneous Lo say LhaL reference musL be made Lo Lhe AngloAmerlcan common law Lo deflne Lhe
rlghLs and duLles of masLer and servanLs 1he Lmployers LlablllLy AcL ls Lhe sole source of auLhorlLy on LhaL sub[ecL ln Lhe hlllpplne
lslands ln cases where lL ls lnvoked and ls appllcable 8eference Lo Lhe common law ls unnecessary Aslde from Lhe facL LhaL ln Lhe
absence of Lhe AcL we would refer Lo Lhe Clvll Code and noL Lo Lhe common law lL may be sald LhaL Lhe AcL ls lLself sufflclenL for
every purpose and Lhe courLs have no rlghL Lo go ouLslde of lL on Lhe assumpLlon LhaL lnLerpreLaLlon ls necessary As we sald ln Lhe
case of Llzarraga Permanos vs ?ap 1lco (24 hll 8ep 304 313)
1he flrsL and fundamenLal duLy of courLs ln our [udgmenL ls Lo opply Lhe law ConsLrucLlon and lnLerpreLaLlon come only
afLer lL has been demonsLraLed LhaL appllcaLlon ls lmposslble or lnadequaLe wlLhouL Lhem 1hey are Lhe very lasL funcLlons
whlch a courL should exerclse 1he ma[orlLy of Lhe laws need no lnLerpreLaLlon or consLrucLlon 1hey requlre only
appllcaLlon and lf Lhere were more appllcaLlon and less consLrucLlon Lhere would be more sLablllLy ln Lhe law and more
people would know whaL Lhe law ls
LeL us proceed Lo Lhe nexL senLence lL ls sald conLlnues Lhe courL LhaL Lhe acL ls an Lmployers LlablllLy AcL and noL a law of
damages 1hls conLenLlon ls wlLhouL foundaLlon ln law because Lo exLend and regulaLe Lhe responslblllLy of employers meoos to
eolotqe tbelt pecooloty lloblllty oLherwlse Lhe phrase would be meanlngless
lL seems Lo me LhaL Lhere ls here a fallure Lo grasp Lhe dlfference beLween exLendlng ones llablllLy and lncreaslng Lhe amounL one
musL pay afLer llablllLy ls esLabllshed All LhaL Lhe AcL does ls Lo locteose tbe oombet of occosloos on whlch Lhe employer wlll have Lo
respond ln damages ln oLher words lL makes lL easler for hls ln[ured employee Lo esLabllsh hls llablllLy lL removes from hls paLh
cerLaln hlndrances and obsLrucLlons Where Lhe employer would noL have been llable before Lhe acL was passed he ls llable now
Where before Lhe acL was passed a cerLaln amounL of proof was requlred now less ls requlred 1he acL changes Lhe source from
whlch Lhe ln[ured employee draws hls rlghLs and ln changlng Lhe source lL aL Lhe same Llme lncreases Lhe number of rlghLs and Lhe
ease wlLh whlch Lhey may be exerclsed 8uL Lhe change ln Lhe source of rlghLs and Lhe lncrease ln Lhe ease wlLh whlch Lhey may be
exerclsed ls very far from an lncrease ln Lhe amounL of Lhe [udgmenL Lhe employee wlll geL as Lhe ulLlmaLe resulL of an exerclse of
Lhose rlghLs A rlghL of acLlon has noLhlng whaLever Lo do wlLh Lhe amounL of recovery yeL Lhese are preclsely Lhe Lwo Lhlngs Lhe
courL has confused Lo such an exLenL as Lo call Lhem Lhe same 1o lncrease Lhe oombet of occosloos ln whlch an employer wlll be
llable ls an enLlrely dlfferenL Lhlng from lncreaslng Lhe omooot of Jomoqes whlch he wlll have Lo pay on each of Lhe lncreased
occaslons
2
Moreover looked aL from a sLandpolnL oLher Lhan prlnclple lL would be mulcLlng Lhe employer from boLh pockeLs aL Lhe
same Llme 1he occaslons of hls llablllLy would be lncreased and Lhe amounL he would have Lo pay on each of Lhose lncreased
occaslons would also be augmenLed by Lhe amounL of damages allowed for paln and sufferlng 1haL Lhe LeglslaLure dld noL lnLend
such a resulL ls evldenL from Lhe facL LhaL whlle Lhe AcL lncreased Lhe occaslons on whlch employers would be llable and Lhe ease
wlLh whlch Lhe employee mlghL Lake advanLage of Lhose occaslons aL Lhe same Llme ooJ os o pottlol compeosotloo tbe oct llmlteJ
tbe omooot of tbe lottets tecovety ln cerLaln cases
l pass over Lhe lnLervenlng senLence of Lhe quoLaLlon and come aL once Lo Lhese 1he rlghL Lo damages ls Lhe essence of Lhe cause
of acLlon lL ls a subsLanLlve rlghL and granLed by Lhe AcL 1ake Lhls away and Lhe ln[ured employee has noLhlng of value lefL Cnes
responslblllLy ls hls llablllLy or obllgaLlon LeL all Lhls be admlLLed and sLlll we may properly puL Lhe quesLlon whaL has lL Lo do wlLh
Lhe maLLer ln hand? Pere agaln lL seems Lo me ls Lhe confuslon beLween a rlghL of acLlon and Lhe omooot of tbe tecovety no one ls
denylng Lhe employee hls tlqbt of octloo lndeed as for myself l am conLendlng LhaL Lhe AcL locteoses tbe oombet of occosloos oo
wblcb be wlll bove o tlqbt of octloo All l am dolng ls combaLlng Lhe proposlLlon LhaL an locteose lo tbe oombet of occosloos on whlch
Lhe employer ls llable means oo locteose lo tbe omooot of tbe tecovety lo ooy qlveo occosloo l deslre Lo malnLaln Lhe dlsLlncLlon
beLween a rlghL of acLlon and Lhe amounL of Lhe recovery Lhe llablllLy and Lhe amounL Lo be pald Lhe prlnclples governlng legal
llablllLy and Lhose governlng Lhe measure of damages

19

Pavlng arrlved aL Lhe concluslon LhaL no damages was proved l do noL pass on Lhe oLher quesLlons dlscussed by Lhe courL

ootnotes
1 no 1874 An AC1 1C Lx1Lnu Anu 8LCuLA1L 1PL 8LSCnSl8lLl1? Cl LMLC?L8S lC8 L8SCnAL ln!u8lLS Anu
uLA1PS SullL8Lu 8? 1PLl8 LMLC?LLS WPlLL A1 WC8k
y ootbotlty of tbe uolteJ 5totes be lt eoocteJ by tbe lblllpploe leqlslotote tbot
SLC1lCn 1 lf personal ln[ury ls caused Lo an employee who aL Lhe Llme of Lhe ln[ury ls ln Lhe exerclse of due care by
reason of
llrsL a defecL ln Lhe condlLlon of Lhe ways works or machlnery connecLed wlLh or used ln Lhe buslness of Lhe employer
whlch arose from or had noL been dlscovered or remedled ln consequence of Lhe negllgence of Lhe employer or of a
person ln hls servlce who had been lnLrusLed by hlm wlLh Lhe duLy of seelng LhaL Lhe ways works or machlnery were ln
proper condlLlon or
Second Lhe negllgence of a person ln Lhe servlce of Lhe employer who was lnLrusLed wlLh and was exerclslng
superlnLendence and whose sole or prlnclpal duLy was LhaL of superlnLendence or ln Lhe absence of such superlnLendenL
of a person acLlng as superlnLendenL wlLh Lhe auLhorlLy or consenL of such employer or
1hlrd Lhe negllgence of a person ln Lhe servlce of Lhe employer who was lncharge or conLrol of a slgnal swlLch locomoLlve
englne or Lraln upon a rallroad Lhe employee or hls legal represenLaLlves shall sub[ecL Lo Lhe provlslons of Lhls AcL have
Lhe same rlghLs Lo compensaLlon and of acLlon agalnsL Lhe employer as lf he had noL been an employee nor ln Lhe servlce
nor engaged ln Lhe work of Lhe employer
A car whlch ls ln use by or whlch ls ln possesslon of a rallroad corporaLlon shall be consldered as parL of Lhe ways works
or machlnery of Lhe corporaLlon whlch uses or has lL ln possesslon wlLhln Lhe meanlng of clause on of Lhls secLlon wheLher
lL ls owned by such corporaLlon or by some oLher company or person Cne or more cars whlch are ln moLlon wheLher
aLLached Lo an englne or noL shall consLlLuLe a Lraln wlLhln Lhelr meanlng of clause Lhree of Lhls secLlon and whoever as
parL of hls duLy for Lhe Llme belng physlcally conLrols or dlrecLs Lhe movemenLs of a slgnal swlLch locomoLlve englne or
Lraln shall be deemed Lo be a person ln charge or conLrol of a slgnal swlLch locomoLlve englne or Lraln wlLhln Lhe meanlng
of sald clause
SLC 2 lf as Lhe resulL of Lhe negllgence of Lhe employer or LhaL of a person for whose negllgence Lhe employer ls llable
under Lhe provlslons of secLlon one an employee ls kllled or dles by reason of ln[urles recelved hls wldow or legal helrs or
nexL of kln who aL Lhe Llme of hls deaLh were dependenL upon hls wages for supporL shall have a rlghL of acLlon for
damages agalnsL Lhe employer
SLC 3 lf under Lhe provlslons of Lhls AcL damages are awarded for Lhe deaLh Lhey shall be assessed wlLh reference Lo Lhe
degree of culpablllLy of Lhe employer or of Lhe person for whose negllgence Lhe employer ls llable
1he amounL of damages whlch may be awarded ln an acLlon under Lhe provlslons of secLlon one for a personal ln[ury Lo an
employee ln whlch no damages for hls deaLh are awarded under Lhe provlslons of secLlon Lwo shall noL exceed Lwo
Lhousand pesos
1he amounL damages whlch may be awarded ln such acLlon lf damages for hls deaLh are awarded under Lhe provlslons of
secLlon Lwo shall noL be less Lhan flve Lhousand pesos nor more Lhan Lwo Lhousand flve hundred pesos for boLh Lhe ln[ury
and Lhe deaLh

20

SLC 4 no acLlon for damages for ln[urles or deaLh under Lhls AcL shall be malnLalned lf a reporL Lhereof ls noL furnlshed Lo
Lhe employer wlLhln nlneLy days of Lhe daLe place and cause of Lhe ln[ury or ln Lhe acLlon ls noL broughL wlLhln one year
from Lhe Llme of Lhe accldenL causlng Lhe ln[ury or deaLh 1he reporL requlred by Lhls secLlon shall be made ln wrlLlng and
slgned by Lhe person ln[ured or by anoLher ln hls name or lf on accounL of physlcal or menLal dlsablllLy lL ls lmposslble for
Lhe person ln[ured Lo glve Lhe noLlce wlLhln Lhe Llme provlded by Lhls secLlon Lhe same may be glven wlLhln Len days afLer
such dlsablllLy shall have been removed and ln case of deaLh wlLhouL sald reporL havlng been glven and wlLhouL Lhe person
havlng for Len days aL any Llme afLer Lhe perlod above menLloned been able Lo glve such noLlce Lhe wldow legal helrs or
nexL of kln dependenL upon hls wages for supporL may glve such noLlce wlLhln LhlrLy days followlng Lhe deaLh of Lhe
laborer no reporL glven under Lhe provlslons of Lhls AcL shall be consldered vold or lnsufflclenL by reason only of some
lnaccuracy sa regards Lhe daLe place or cause of Lhe ln[ury lf Lhere was no lnLenLlon Lo mlslead or Lhe employer has noL
been mlsled by reason of such lnaccuracy
SLC 3 All acLlons for damages whlch may be broughL under Lhls AcL shall have preference over all oLher maLLers save and
excepL crlmlnal cases and habeas corpus maLLers on Lhe dockeLs of Lhe courLs of flrsL lnsLance and shall be prompLly Lrled
by Lhe courL and declded wlLhln flfLeen days afLer flnal submlsslon of Lhe case Lo Lhe courL for declslon
Cn appllcaLlon Lo Lhe courL by Lhe parLy ln[ured or by hls duly auLhorlzed represenLaLlves Lhe courL may make a proper
allowance for food and medlcal aLLendance durlng Lhe pendency of Lhe acLlon and whlle medlcal aLLendance ls Llll
necessary by reason of Lhe ln[ury ltovlJeJ bowevet 1haL Lhe defendanL ln Lhe acLlon shall be glven an opporLunlLy Lo be
heard before any such allowance ls made
SLC 6 lf an employer enLers lnLo a conLracL wrlLLen or verbal wlLh an lndependenL conLracLor Lo do parL of such
employers work or lf such conLracLor enLers lnLo a conLracL wlLh a subconLracLor Lo do all or any parL of Lhe work
comprlsed ln such conLracLors conLracL wlLh Lhe employer such conLracL or subconLracL shall noL bar Lhe llablllLy of Lhe
employer for ln[urles Lo Lhe employees of such conLracLor or subconLracLor caused by any defecL ln Lhe condlLlon of Lhe
ways works machlnery or planL lf Lhey are Lhe properLy of Lhe employer or are furnlshed by hlm and lf such defecL arose
or had noL been dlscovered or remedled Lhrough Lhe negllgence of Lhe employer or of some person lnLrusLed by hlm wlLh
Lhe duLy of seelng LhaL Lhey were ln proper condlLlon
SLC 7 An employer who shall have conLrlbuLed Lo an lnsurance fund creaLed and malnLalned for Lhe muLual purpose of
lndemnlfylng an employee for personal ln[urles for whlch compensaLlon may be recovered under Lhe provlslons of Lhls AcL
or who shall have conLrlbuLed Lo any rellef socleLy for Lhe same purpose may prove ln mlLlgaLlon of Lhe damages
recoverable by an employee under Lhe provlslons of Lhls AcL such proporLlon of Lhe pecunlary beneflL whlch has been
recelved by such employee from any fund or socleLy on accounL of such conLrlbuLlon of sald employer as Lhe conLrlbuLlon
of such employer Lo such fund or socleLy bears Lo Lhe whole conLrlbuLlon LhereLo
SLC 8 An employee or hls legal represenLaLlves shall noL be enLlLled under Lhe provlslons of Lhls AcL Lo any rlghL of acLlon
for damages agalnsL hls employer lf such employee knew of Lhe defecL or negllgence whlch caused Lhe ln[ury and falled
wlLhln a reasonable Llme Lo glve or cause Lo be glven lnformaLlon Lhereof Lo Lhe employer or Lo some person superlor Lo
hlmself ln Lhe servlce of Lhe employer who was lnLrusLed wlLh general superlnLendence
SLC 9 1hls AcL shall noL be appllcable Lo domesLlc servanLs or agrlculLural laborers
SLC 10 Any agreemenL Lo renounce Lhe beneflLs of Lhls AcL made by Lhe laborer prlor Lo Lhe occurrence of any accldenL
resulLlng ln hls ln[ury or deaLh shall be null and vold
SLC 11 1hls AcL shall Lake effecL on lLs passage
LnacLed !une 19 1908
2 1hls prlnclple was expressly applled ln Lhe recenL case of uharamdas vs Paroomall (33 hll 8ep 183) where Lhe
headnoLe reads

21

Where a sLaLuLe deals excluslvely wlLh Lhe prlnclples Louchlng Lhe llablllLy of persons ln a speclfled class of cases lL wlll noL
be held Lo affecL Lhe law of Lhe land governlng damages appllcable ln such cases when llablllLy has been esLabllshed
ln Lhe body of Lhe oplnlon Lhe courL sald
1hls as wlll be seen aL a glance slmply confers Lhe rlghL Lo brlng a clvll acLlon Lo obLaln Lhe rellef whlch formerly could be
secured only ln a crlmlnal acLlon no rule or measure of damages ls lald down by Lhe AcL and Lhe sLaLuLe havlng for lLs only
purpose Lhe glvlng of an `addlLlonal remedy and noL revoklng repeallng or modlfylng `any oLher clvll remedy whlch Lhe
exlsLlng law may afford affecLs ln no way Lhe law of Lhe land relaLlng Lo Lhe rule or measure of damages ln such cases 1he
sLaLuLe really affecLs meLhod only lL does noL lnLerfere wlLh Lhe subsLanLlve law 1he rlghL always exlsLed ln all cases 1he
sLaLuLe slmply offers anoLher meLhod of maklng LhaL rlghL effecLlve 1he naLure of Lhe rlghL and Lhe resulLs flowlng
Lherefrom boLh crlmlnally and clvllly are unaffecLed by Lhe AcL