Kiley v. Chi., M. & St. P. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 24 April 1909
• Citation: 138 Wis. 215,120 N.W. 756
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
• Parties: KILEY v. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO.

138 Wis. 215

120 N.W. 756

KILEY

v.CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

April 24, 1909.

For majority opinion, see 119 N. W. 309.

WINSLOW, C. J. (concurring).

While I heartily agree with the opinion of the court in this case, I deem it proper, in view of the importance of the case, to add a few words of my own, in order to express in my own way the grounds upon which I understand the decision to be based.

The main contention of appellant is that the law is unconstitutional, because not confined to those employés who are actually engaged in operating trains or incurring risks peculiar to the railroad business. The claim is that there can be no classification, except a classification of employés based upon the character of the risk incurred. There is doubtless much authority which justifies this claim. Such was unquestionably the controlling idea, when laws of this nature first made their appearance on the statute books. Many such laws were confined by their terms to injuries resulting from hazards peculiar to the railroad business, and some were upheld only because the courts were able to construe them as intended only to cover injuries resulting from such hazards. Whether the last-named courts would now feel required to so construe such laws in order to sustain their constitutionality may be doubtful. I think not, and for this reason:

Railway corporations engaged in the business of common carriers have been classified and subjected to peculiar and special legislation from the earliest times, and properly so. Their situation and the peculiar character of their business and its relation to the public safety demands special legislation. This law, therefore, in classifying railway carriers and subjecting them to different liabilities, only follows many other laws whose constitutionality never has been questioned. Viewed in the light of a classification of railway carriers, rather than as a classification of employés or dangers, there seems to me no reason why it should not be sustained without difficulty. Railway carriers conduct a business unique in its dangers, both to its employés and to the public, and are charged with unique liabilities to the entire public. These are considerations which suggest or demand special and peculiar legislation; and this legislation may well be along the lines of an increased liability for the negligence of their own employés, not only in the operation of trains, but in all the railway business. From the fence repairerto the locomotive engineer, practically every railway employé is doing something upon which depends, not only the successful operation of the railroad,...