Sturgess v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.

• Decision Date: 20 March 1908
• Citation: 60 S.E. 939,80 S.C. 167
• Parties: STURGESS v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. [*]
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

60 S.E. 939

80 S.C. 167

STURGESS v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. ^[*]

Supreme Court of South Carolina

March 20, 1908

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Charleston County; R. O Purdy, Judge.

Action by J. R. Sturgess against the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Legare & Holman, for appellant.

Willcox & Willcox and Henry E. Davis, for respondent.

GARY A. J.

We will consider first whether the act is constitutional. The statute was intended to remedy an evil that not only exists in this state, but is so extensive throughout the land as to necessitate action on the part of the federal government in the passage of an act entitled "An act relating to liability of common carriers," etc., approved 11th June 1906, the third section of which is as follows: "That no contract of employment, insurance, relief, benefit, or indemnity for injury or death entered into by or on behalf of any employé, nor the acceptance of any such insurance relief, benefit, or indemnity by the person entitled thereto shall constitute any bar or defence to any action brought to recover damages for personal injuries to or death of such employé: Provided, however, that, upon the trial of such action against any common carrier, the defendant may set off therein any sum it has contributed toward any such insurance, relief, benefit, or indemnity that may have been paid to the injured employé, or in case of his death, to his personal representative." Act June 11, 1906, c. 3073, 34 Stat. 233 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 892]. Although the statute last mentioned has been declared unconstitutional, the third section thereof was not before the court for construction. The statute under consideration was enacted for the purpose of preventing railroad corporations (and other parties therein mentioned) from inaugurating schemes, the ultimate aim and practical effect of which are to enable the railroad company to bring such influence to bear upon its employés as will force them to surrender their claims for damages when they have sustained injury through the negligence of the company, against which it is not allowed by law to contract. When the regulations of the hospital and relief fund are analyzed, it will be seen that they contemplate the result just mentioned. Not only do they provide that the employé who has paid his assessments and thereby contributed to the creation and a maintenance of said fund shall be barred from recovering damages for negligence if he accepts the benefit thereunder, but they likewise provide that his representatives shall not be allowed to bring an action for damages caused by the negligence of the corporation, if they accept the benefit of said fund. Membership in the hospital and relief fund creates the relation of trustee and cestui que trust between the company and the employé, and, although the employé is assessed to maintain the fund, he is not allowed to receive a dollar of the money collected for that purpose, unless he surrenders his claim for damages when he has been injured through the negligence of the corporation. The fiduciary relation established between the company and the employé places him practically at the mercy of the corporation, for it is a well known fact that the employés are not persons generally of large means, and frequently are dependent entirely upon their salary or wages for a support. What is the condition of the employé when he is injured through the negligence of the company? He realizes the fact that he has a beneficial interest in a trust fund, and, being in need of the money, he is anxious to get it. He is informed, however, that he must surrender all other claims against the corporation. At this time he, perhaps, is suffering great mental and physical pain, his mind is not so clear as when in health, and the opportune time contemplated by the corporation has arrived when he can be easily persuaded to relinquish his claim for damages arising out of negligence. Public policy demands that the corporation shall not have the opportunity of taking advantage of its employés through the fiduciary relations established between them with that end in view. We only desire to say in conclusion, that if the hospital and relief fund is successfully operated, the practical result will be that the railroad company will be enabled to liquidate claims for damages arising out of its negligence with sums of money contributed, in the main, by its employés-an indirect way of contracting against its negligence. We do not think, however, that the question as to the constitutionality of the statute is controlling in this case; but as it fairly arises upon the record, was also made the paramount issue in the circuit court, and is of vital importance, we have followed the practice in other cases, and have considered it. It is true the statute provides that the acceptance of benefits under the hospital fund shall not operate to estop or in any manner bar the right of the employé from recovering damages for injury caused by the negligence of the corporation; but it does not provide that a receipt or release given in...