*1 & GÓW WARD Argument Plaintiff in Error. for
498. superflu- it would be ante, 419, that further discussion'Of of the decree authority of that decision upon ous and Appeals Court of Circuit Affirmed. v. KRINSKY ET AL. & GOW DIVISION, COURT, THIRD APPELLATE THE SUPREME TO ERROR DEPARTMENT, THE YORK. OP STATE OP NEW JUDICIAL 5, 1922. 14, 1921. Decided June Argued December No. 343. are not employers the Fourteenth Amendment rights under of 1. (see Compensation Act the New York by an extension of violated White, employ- 188) 243 U. all R. S. R. Co. v. New York Central operatives (farm laborers four more' workmen in which ments regularly employed, excepted) servants construed and domestic including, also, employees all other court by the state employed and in the same business with such work- employer same Pp. though places remote operatives, at from their work. men and 516. advertising employer disposing an in the business 2. held of So subway platforms and station and elevated on the cars space selling city, newspapers, etc., at booths railway lines in a and of platforms; employees, including numerous ex- located on porters; many chauffeurs and sales- ecutives, clerks, inspectors, separately apart working in the from booths other em- men injury question .upon in and where the was inflicted such ployees; he was subway emptying train while a salesman pail of platform water, tracks a used in connec- from his Work his booth. P. tion with 557; 525, affirmed. App. 231 N. Y. Div. judgment of the Supreme to a Court New Error Division, entered remittitur York, Appellate an Appeals, affirming the Court award com- . York made the New pensation Compensation Com- Krinsky. in favor the defendant error mission Hertwig Herman S. Mr. plaintiff error. as, of occupations must
A classification hazardous bear relation to the facts. reasonable
Argument
for Plaintiff
in Error.
time,
.
present
Down to
has been expressly recog
nized, by
legislatures,
both courts
that hazard must
occupation
in fact exist
to afford a basis for the
*2
power through
of the police
compensation
exercise
legis
meant
By
dangers,
lation.
hazard is
inherent
greater
than those
in the
existing
occupations
innumerable
com
monly regarded as non-hazardous. Mountain Timber
243
Washington,
Co. v.
U.
219;
Employers’
S.
Arizona
Liability Cases,
The compensation was into in plan put operation New York first over conspicuously .certain hazardous occupa- mining, railway etc., tions like operations, in described forty-two groups. validity After of the law was White, in upheld New York Central R. R. Co. v. in 188, regard obviously to such hazardous employments, next 1916, 622, was extended Laws c. to embrace every employee whose employer prosecuting one of the hazardous operations business, as his principal whether the occupation of the employee himself was hazardous or non-hazardous. This extension was founded on the apparently theory that where the busi- principal ness is hazardous, may reasonably assume that all in employees are manner some affected hazard operation. The principal validity of it under the Constitution, so far discover, as we can has not been considered, either in the state or in court. courts this It well be seriously questioned.
The New York Legislature took as a point departure enlargement its next scope the law"a provision of the Ohio Compensation Workmen’s characterizing Law manual, laborers, as inherently hazardous the work of groups five or more. Gen. Code Ohio, 1465-60, up- §§ Creamer, held State v. St. Oh. 349; again in Jeffrey Blagg, v. 90 Oh. St. affirmed, 235. U. S. 571. The básis holding for the seems to have been that mere association of manual workers group labor neces- . «fe GOW c in Error. Argument Plaintiff
503. by reason hazardous renders their work sarily imperfect many of so labor concurrence such Co., Light Power & human Middleton v. Texas factors. U. S. labor thus established cooperative groups With such Leg- New York hazard, the objects of imputed reasonable like the Ohio such proceeded groups not, islature to use — objects themselves of compensation, Legislature, simply group, drawing a comprehensive but as the nucleus for employees all compensation plan the compulsory into four or work- employ who more employer happens result was second Group men or operatives. valid, If revolutionary. of the law This extension law compulsory compensation practi- it subjects to the be- any consequence State, cally every employer a dozen or more em- there few employers cause *3 their, do not have at least four service who ployees in They in some labor. must them manual among compensation all, heavy insurance for at either maintain deposits of or else securities with premiums, make annual payment compensation guarantee the State to benefits. by the in operation plaintiff error, twenty years In of. four accidents among employees, but and there have been manual among have all these been laborers who are there, In twenty years, these by covered insurance^ has among an accident other employees never before been majority plaintiff in constituting the vast error’s force. of the claimant himself and of occupation the vast
majority conspicuously his free from co-employees injury consequence, His was the not of haz- any hazard. inherent in his but of employment, gross personal ard haye folly incredible negligence brought would injury any any person occupation whatever.
In private employments, subject made to compulsory compensation laws, the quality by that has been declared
506 g. Opinion 259 of the Couii. U. such employments courts alike to clothe legislatures interest, justify and thus to intervention public with has been that of inherent hazards legislature, regard without employments, exposing employees, more side, physical injuries fault on either to death or to consequent impoverishment, partial (cid:127)or less with disabling, him. total, those dependent the workman or Cases, 400, 428. Liability Employers’ Arizona employment, such hazard presence Without and this public lacking, these features of concern Illinois, v. U. S. means, as Munn 94 was demonstrated 113, necessary police regulation for foundation lacking. Aiken, D. Mr. E. whom Mr. Charles Clarence
n Newton, General Attorney of the State New York/was on the brief, Commission, the State defend- Industrial ant error. Pitney
Mr. Justice the opinion delivered of the court. The New York Workmen’s Compensation Law of 1913- 816; cc. 41 1913, 1914, c. Laws sus [Laws 316] against tained as constitutional attacks based on the due of- equal protection clauses the Fourteenth process White, York in New R. R. Amendment Central Co. further S. after several amendments was U. 634 of the added to amended c. Laws which émployments of hazardous a new sub-divi the list § second to desig 45—the be so group, sion *4 follows: 45. All other Group employ as reading nated — any carried enumerated on ments not hereinbefore in there are or corporation firm or which person, operatives more workmen or regularly, or four employed or in establish or about same in the same business away or at the or premises plant either ment, hire, of any contract under employer, plant & GOW Opinion of the Court. 5CT farm written, except oral or laborers implied, express and domestic servants.” of raises whether question
The writ error present if and Law, extended, thus construed Compensation liability in error a plaintiff so applied impose upon of in error Himan for in the defendant compensation case of either of the cited consti- Krinsky, is in contravention tutional provisions. of the facts a somewhat' singularity particu- makes necessary understanding to a clear
lar statement Ward, in error, Plaintiff Artemas under argument. Interborough from the Gow, Rapid name Ward & leases and'vending advertising privileges Transit Company railway City lines in the various and elevated subway ad- York, carries on the business of disposing New and in on and platforms, station vertising space, cars-and and various articles of merchandise selling periodicals, In the latter depart- located upon platforms. booths there are requires 307 em- ment, mention, which alone office executives, workers, news stand including ployees, over different elevated singly who travel inspectors and see that the sales subway inspect displays lines to and chauffeurs who drive trucks kept, booths properly headquarters merchandise from downtown transporting and elevated sta- subway in Manhattan to different and the trucks at loading unloading tions, porters them others, among various 125 news headquarters, and in a is stationed at a booth salesmen, each whom stand railway station, whose work subway elevated Each of employees. goes other them from that separate thence to morning his directly to his stand home his consist of keeping display duties evening, small and other articles candies, magazines, of papers, the counter, them across selling keepihg order, proper only the collections. The turning sales account whom a salesman comes contact other employees *5 Opinion of the Court. brings the chauffeur who inspector, supplies
are the and the truck, subway either down to the or up from the and them across the counter platform, passes elevated the salesman. salesmen, one of these stationed a booth
Krinsky was in the Bronx. The booth was a steel station subwáy at a 2y2 feet deep, 8 feet wide long, high, feet structure feet from the of the edge plat- a wall 10 against located free In booth and its contents keep order to the form, of cleanli- proper his hands condition dust, from and booth, in a for convenience the kept ness, water was Krinsky by to be by employer, emptied the furnished pail obtained replenished water necessary, and when the train level. He stairs above flights two washroom morning the in the water emptying in the habit was supply subway replenishing of the the tracks and morning February, One starting business. before usual, Krinsky was the water thus emptying while train, approaching head of the the side struck disabling per- he sustained and fractured his skull was found Industrial Commission injuries which sonal in the course out of and arose accidental were employment. commission was made compensation
An award Court Supreme of the Division Appellate by the affirmed was affirmed with- judgment 557), and its Div. (193 App. re- The record was Appeals. Court of by- out opinion order made the which Division, Appellate mitted to own, its of Appeals judgment Court error was writ present record as custodian directed. ques- is it courts, nor in the state disputed
It department merchandising here, tioned than, four workmen more were there in érror plaintiff 45 of of second meaning within operatives” were Evidently porters Law. Compensation 2 of the § v. WARD & GOW Opinion of the Court. ” such, were in the same business clearly salesmen, they loaded the which car trucks _,with ried the merchandise from the central depot to the booths. Appellate salesmen, Division held that although *6 “ not operatives ”, workmen or nevertheless were within ' the protection the statute. Reference was made to of the ” 4 employee definition of in subdivision of 3, amended § by 622, 1917, Laws c. 705, c. Laws so as to in anyone clude in the service of an whose employer princi pal conducting business that of a hazardous employ ment, previous construed decisions as bringing within of the statute all protection employees the accidentally of duties injured performance incidental to the business defined as prosecution/ hazardous, a even duties were though part such of the characteristic a. (Mat operation forming the basis of process the group Co., ter Dose Moehle Lithographic v. 221 N. Y. Spang Broadway Brewing Co., & Malting v. 405; 182 Co., 443; Joyce id., Eastman Kodak App. 354); Div. añd it was held that this since’ rule to all applied the other defined in groups 2, it applied respect § must.be 45. That view group second of the Court of Appeals substantially same, appears was not only from its Division, affirming judgment Appellate of the without questioning reasoning, its but from the opinion delivered by Appeals the Court of in a itself case decided at the this, Europe v. Addison Amusements, time with same Inc., 105. Europe N. Y. was of a famous conductor who, band of after a military musicians service with the Forces in France, went a concert tour American. (cid:127)throughout States, United under employment Ad by Amusements, Inc. dison With the band sixty-five were four pieces there or more or operatives workmen em it, ployed accompany arrangé platforms; chairs and scenery, baggage, handle etc. Europe himself, although employee not among an. those described as work-
Opinion of the Court. U. S. work, operatives,” nor hazardous or- men an intermission in the dinarily During pro- so-called. stabbed gram concert he was and killed drum- band. Court of Appeals, sustaining mer Division, Industrial Commission and Appellate held protection that he was within the second we appellate jurisdiction In of our the exercise law adopted by the construction state bound its for present last hence it must resort; court of purposes settled that intended the com- taken as to apply law as amended to an employee in pensation ifas so Krinsky’s it were declared in situation, precisely confined to Our function is words the statute. de- applied whether, as so construed and termining case, facts of the statute contravenes concrete Amendment imposed by the Fourteenth limitations action. state *7 in clause, of law plaintiff the due error process
Under compulsory the of workmen’s com- validity that contends inherently the upon acts hazardous depends pensation a occupations covered; legislative that character is hazardous is employment that a certain not declaration impose upon employer, and that to the conclusive; a instance, to make liability done in this com- said to be of any to out hundreds whose occu- employee pensation non-hazardous, because four or more work- pations to may happen regularly employed be operatives or men in or the same business, or about establish- in the same injured into contact with the although brought ment, counsel, to use the words of where, and his employee, not of consequence any the hazard inherent in was injury personal negligence, gross but in- employment, his have to folly brought injury any per- would that credible whatever,” altogether is so any occupation in unrea- son in due wanting process. argument be as to sonable misconception the legislature the curious upon, rests WARD & GOW Opinion of the Court.- operatives as the sole source the workmen
regarded them; in to those the same business danger the untenable, .that assumption, equally and the upon subway station, of a salesman at a occupation protected ordinarily by comparative security of a steel booth but times, duty, go called at the line to into upon and into close moving throngs passengérs proximity moving, rails which locomotives and trains are from free inherent hazard to the salesman. That injuries Krinsky’s arose out and the course of his employment by commission, was found whose findings courts, and decision were affirmed both and must be conclusive us unless ascertained to be with- in- evidence, out support including any reasonable from ference be drawn it.. seen,
As has been he a charged was with the sale of stock, of for belonging merchandise and employer, this was stationed a purpose placed upon booth platform subway station, of a ten feet about tracks.- There was showing evidence that he had sole and responsibility merchandise, for care of this display which, course, he sell was to to the passing throngs train passengers, required keep booth, stock, his own person cleanly condition. The employer container for water supplied used purpose, naturally latter this was kept booth, emptied replenished Krinsky re- occasion quired. He was not instructed how this done, should be and the state commission and courts reasonably might infer that he *8 atwas to do it in liberty most convenient the expeditious and To say, mode. he suggested, that to constrained close and lock the booth, leave it and go two up flights, either elevator or staircase, order to the empty water, with consequent interruption of busi- ness in the meantime (thirty minutes, according to the could, be-, .evidence), when ,the same accomplish d object TERM, Opinion of the S. Court. 259 U. closing without the booth step- in a few moments and platform edge to the the track ping ten feet across the of water, relying the a volunteer upon and there emptying a fresh a place to would be to bring supply, assistant scope unreasonable construction the upon and strained he have True, might par- duties. avoided implied he him, hazard that overtook had chosen ticular again, down instead journey, flights up tedious two and edge across to the of the steps platform the half-dozen subway hurry bustle Whether, track. and crowd, required Krinsky’s per- the nature of duties it course, mitted him to follow the slower even one injury than the personal involved less probability the com- questions upon are which habitually adopted, to draw courts are fitted peculiarly and the state mission are not warranted Certainly, inferences. we correct evi- findings support are without holding that dence. compulsory Workmen’s Com-
A sufficient vindication it Acts, as has seemed Liability Employers’ pensation interest State public found court, to this under security of those who are personal in the lives that, laws; from which follows when itsof protection it is occupations gain, in hazardous employed men charge pecuniary of the State power within the personal injury, or fatal disabling arising losses the man- industry after against least, extent at some rest allowing them to insurance, instead casualty ner in- particular may happen they, where fall — end to this dependents; or their jured employees organizes who and directs thd,.employer require that —he fixes the workmen, wages, sets hires the enterprise,, gross proceeds, pays receives the price the,.product, net for his reward the and takes the costs losses to made such com- or secure be máke any if profits, —shau reasonably may paid to be prescribed, pensation *9 v. & 513 GOW Opinion of Court. the injury event or death of one of employed, the of the those risk to instead of the entire bé assumed the permitting by In immediately general, affected. individuals New York provisions compensation for law, compulsory are made only employed those in hazardous apply it occupations, par both contemplated by where ties in advancé sooner or employed later some of those probably injury will accidental in.the course sustain employment, where nobody but can in advance know which particular or how will be the vic employees many tims, or how serious will York New Cen injuries. be the White, tral R. R. Co. seq.; et 243 188, 202, v. U. S. Moun tain Timber Washington, Co. 219, v. 243- 239, U. S. Employers’ Liability Cases, Arizona 244; 400, 250 U. S. 420, 422-426.
That was inherent hazard Krinsky’s occupation there shown that in course of it conclusively by the fact he disabling arising received personal injury .a serious might out 'of have foreseen is it. That event been occurred, not way in which it demonstrated speak of foresaw legislature actually the fact before it, and made it occurred. Hence provision long there deprivation was no undue the liberty- property of plaintiff error, right or his in law- acquira.property in the act of the ful-business, required which him warning to take and make provision against the event which afterwards in fact occurred. the, It wiíl be while, by seen that terms of statute, of’ four or more employment workmen or operatives
regularly, or in or same.business about the same etc., establishment,” apparently is as the indicated basis of new rather frequently adopted laws —one of this character, Jeffrey Manufacturing Co. Blagg, U. Middleton v. Texas etc.; S. & Light Power Co., 152, 159; by the construction effect, — in state adopted court and binding upon us, em- 9545° —23-33
Opinion of the Court. 259U.S. ployees brought within the compensation features of the act include only four or more or oper- workmen ”, atives injured others through contact with them, but *10 any and all other in employees the same business who may suffer accidental of disabling arising and out injury employment, although the course of their due to hazards typical group. incidental not the The second group contention that this construction beyond the limit 45 has been extended allowable con- sistently with due of law and has been process applied no employment an with inherent in this case to hazard an of fact assumption disproved by whatever,” rests so, it argument Were the is Krinsky’s experience. requires employer to self-destructive. statute disability for the or death of compensation make secure it from accidental results only per- where employee an course of the out of- and in the em- injury arising sonal entirely free employment Where ployment. the. imposes the statute no employee, hazard to inherent hence employer, cannot substan- responsibility liberty or property, with or his with- with interfere tially Employers’ Liability of law.” process due Arizona out 400, Cases, U. S. |>y..omitting extravagant
Reducing argument absurdity, to it plainly that so leads statement Krinsky’s occupation was no more thus: outlined of residents of the of millions metro- than that hazardous subways make use of daily who district politan to and from their going. work; railways in elevated accident among plaintiff no such been had there years operation; in 20 and that employees error’s burdensome to unnecessarily re- unreasonably it is compensation maintain insur- either employer to quire securities deposit premiums, heavy annual at ance ,the compensation benefits, payment guarantee to State slight. is so The answer is injury the probability where & GOW v. Opinion of the Cotírt. To the self-insurer no liability except accrues as dis easy: injuries actually occur; abling giving security, ,the (New reasonable regulation aid of general scheme York White, R. R. 208-209), Co. Central does not obligation. increase the To the who in employer sures, presumably premiums will not exceed a reason able estimate of him risk; to who insures the state there assurance of equivalency public fund, administration of the fund under law, et seq., § especially duty imposed upon the state board § separate keep to each accounts,as so to deter group mine equitable rates, rearrange the with groups by drawing any employment embraced one transferring wholly or in part another, set up new groups at discretion, to determine the hazards the dif *11 ferent composing classes each fix group to the pre miums therefor, upon based the total and number pay-roll of employees in each class of at employment, the lowest rate possible consistent the maintenance of a solvent insurance fund and the creation of a reasonable surplus A similar system and reserve. was sustained in Mountain Washington, Timber Co. U. S. 241-243. argument the for fallacy holding The it arbitrary impose the upon employer, unreasonable the burden of in making compensation employments where injury is im and difficult *to be foreseen, be probable should fairly ap is pointed that, when it out in parent the absence of the not a the entire statute, part but loss consequent upon disabling injury arising or fatal out of and in the course of would have the to be employment assumed-and borne by employee the his dependents, just disabled as under they beyond still must bear all the statute the scheduled they Yet have no compensation. better opportunity to casualty the than employer, (in foresee the the judg legislature) of the less opportunity ment to make pro-. TERM, 1921.
Opinion of the U. S. Court. The the rule, requiring common-law it. against vision of it in risk, the and to take account to assume employee dimly the that the wages, recognized fixing when advance in ought by to be borne accidents cost industrial purpose, such a for partly failed to effectuate dustry, but estimated by not be very reason that hazard could against provided nor loss advance, individual . cooperation. without by addition of Compensation
"The extension of Law the recent modification of the following second demonstrating far from its “employee,” definition unreasonable, Rrinsky’s arbitrary case ac- application through legislative department, State its tion rather, foresight, anticipation, shows, intelligent based practical experience operation law it that, foreseen before, persons stood however little im- concerned, injuries disabling accidental mediately inevit- previously not ably occupations would occur classed as hazardous, and a reasonable determination to include them already in a found to be free constitutional scheme general in its objection application. sufficiently indicated grounds holding
We have repugnant as thus extended is not guar- statute ” Fourteenth process law of due Amend- anty ment. deny equal error plaintiff That floes laws,” clear. equally argument protection the untenable if theory that proceeds it does “of four to the or more employment hazard imputed *12 regularly, same business or operatives workmen establishment,” its effect in the same in or about to must be confined compensation scheme hazards^ In Jeffrey to labor. Manufacturing attributable 575; Middleton Blagg, 235 S. v. U. v. Texas Co. 152, 159, a Light Co., 249 somewhat U. S. similar Power & but sustamfBd, upon any classification limited WARD & GOW KRINSKY. Opinion of the Court. In framing so
ground. far-reaching a scheme diverse, so legislation, dealing occupations necessarily a wide must be accorded to range legislative discretion defining groups about the. which it to shall Lines apply. drawn, must be and it is not to be assumed that they have good been drawn without reason. The difference between the smaller larger establishments be recog- nized aas básis of classification in legislation affecting the contributory negligence defenses and assumption of risk, as was in Jeffrey Manufacturing held Blagg, Co. v. supra. minimum number So, the in a single employ may we regarded, think, arranging system designed to distribute the burden of industrial accident losses with a of the to industry Nor ability bear it. need a view law framed on the lines of that under consideration confine the compensation narrowly to typical cases, where it is confined, here, actually cases arising the course gainful employment, and due to inherent of the hazards Second occupation. group,45 applies to all impartially employers who come the descriptive within terms; “of employment four or more workmen or operatives ” regularly is treated as of a nucleus business probably involving hazard to personal some of those employed; and rule of construction is same applied to this to other groups. insisted,
But, is neither stare decisis nor ita lex scripta an adequate est furnishes to a reply objec- constitutional court tion. This sustained the New York Workmen’s Compensation Law, and the kindred statutes of Washing- ton Arizona, fundamentally ground hazardous nature of the occupations covered. If that ground defensible at all—so runs the argument —the must system be confined occupations actually hazardous nature; legislative their definition is not sufficient, nor the occurrence of a single accident, much less one so- singular and so little related his duty as that general *13 (cid:127) U.S.
Opinion of the Court. haz- adequate Krinsky, proof occupational which befell way his any day, on might anybody, It occur to ard. careful. business, especially were he not downtown to risk” to of “inherent This is too fantastic definition must conform to standards form a of a law which basis reasonableness; how again, And can classification reasonable, 45 be sustained as to in second resorted process either of the due requirements within the ” ” provisions of the laws or equal protection law of a sales- occupation Amendment? Fourteenth not the Bronx does be- far uptown alone man stationed porters four or more simply come hazardous because in Man- headquarters at downtown regularly employed by the reason accept suggested hattan. How- can we Case, (somewhat Europe supra, Court of Appeals in court, its when the said, should be random, at adequacy), required not test its confession, own at ordinarily hazardous becomes such not a business “.that operated or machinery is done manual work times when be an This would purpose”? its main with connection experience Especially to common assumption contrary — in Manhattan and downtown manual work applied might as well have salesman —it single occupation .a Bronx. What reason is in the uptown been 500 clerks — liability upon employer compulsory imposing there for he Bronx because finds or clerks simply of salesmen in separate same but time, at the employ it convenient operatives in Manhattan?" four workmen He duties, neighbor and workmen —his business dismiss the might dispense such workmen —and might thus competitor Classification immunity the statute. is per- gain on legislation only when based reasonable missible grouping This is classification peculiar gone grounds. simple be süstained It cannot obvious wild. Jeffrey Manufacturing Co. v. Blagg, supra, applied tests kindred cases. & GOW v. KRINSKY. Opinion of the Court. fair believe, summary reasoning is a This, we and in the oral suggested argu- brief expressed in error. We have minimized its plaintiff ment *14 that, seriously, if is to be taken and concede it it force, the subject Compensation second group seems to amendments, by this and other recént to Law as extended responded be to if the ought satisfactorily test that to validity of statute is to be made clear. the admitted —for
Many propositions may the be the correct according to purpose argument only of the —as standards, unanswerable priori without resort to the endeavor, We shall with some experience. care, tests to standpoint, answer from the latter not contenting our- rather replies selves with some too obvious already sug- ' gested. ,, Compensation The New York Workmen’s Law by its actual, is based not terms existence hypo- thetical, inherent hazards employees in confronting gain- ful was sustained occupations; by as valid this court White, that New York R. R. ground Central Co. v. supra; by has been administered constantly State on basis; group second 45 shows no clear evidence depart of a it. We leave purpose wholly aside, as involved, question not here whether the new group other any could be sustained on basis. Any question validity of an act purporting about to impose com- liability upon employers for losses due to pulsory occupa- really hazards where there no occupational tional haz- be left until such a ards, may safely case is presented. that, in a test of Next, agree we constitutionality under Amendment, question Fourteenth whether there is occupation in an or a hazard group inherent occupa- conclusively not to be settled by tions is a legislative by empty an form of words. We add, declaration it is settled, hardly affected, by arbitrary o statement, unaided light priori experience in
.Opinion of the Court. in- legislature acted, absolutely that there is which no in an occupation, especially ap- herent hazard where it pears employee seriously injured even one has been acting while the line of his a manner that duties easily might.have anticipated been employer, the inspector supervised work, say who his nothing either, the employee himself, had of these exercised the care man to ordinary reasonably prudent whom the frequently common law so resorts a standard. The justified in the New York legislature, system, ex- far tending Compensation benefits Law as as it occupational reasonably determine extend hazard ” any as it were —and vanishing point lines of —-to if easily understood may adopt, and ap- definition “an reasonably empty be called cannot form of plied, ” do not they carry on their merely because face words *15 them. adopting for reasons (if it were that as we Again, agree necessary, we hold explain themselves), lines should not, group is that of the quoted opinion Court suggestion, Ap- Europe hardly Case offers satisfactory ex- peals definite group, reasonably of the new and sub- planation of the basis, its within the tests Fourteenth stantial court, by But this while Amendment. bound the con- adopted the state court by struction of the statute of.last question state law—is not con- being resort —that reasoning but exercise an independent its must by cluded upon to determine the called federal judgment, when , construed re- applied, whether question act of the the restrictions Amendment. Any sug- to pugnant from, court in aid act gestion fairly may the state an suggestion having but a adverse effect, accepted; be respectful consideration, is not while entitled by action taken the State weakening the through taken branch, furnishing or as exclusive state- legislative its legislature upon which acted. It grounds ment'of the v. & GOW Opinion of the Court. no Europe question Case say that proper to have appears of the new constitutionality alluded to the phraseology and the court been presented, of construction. merely question of the dispose many and its In Law Compensation examining one in and the work- amendments, question, including cited and by the decisions of the law as indicated ings to the again again; have others, impressed we been of its any that this act or conviction, point complete A bunglers. the work of novices or amendments is not no re- resorted there is priori to; has not been reasoning no knowledge ”; common liance upon generalizations for No case nothing granted. taken simply ”; because more the wisdom aptly forcibly that we recall illustrates this court in a case rule, recént expressed of the familiar that a strong presumption “There is a in these terms: the needs correctly appreciates understands its are directed to problems, laws of its own people, its discriminations experience, made manifest Texas Middleton adequate grounds.” are based upon 157. The Co., 249 U. S. law Light Power & the taking 1914 after effect and reenacted in 1913 passed under circum- adopted amendment of a constitutional Case, 188, 195; mentioned the White stances in March, 1917; announced this court was the decision of 1, 1914, and July commenced meanwhile, administration four to the enactment years prior was continued rulings, of compensation a multitude 45; second group decisions, and .court Attorney General, opinions the ad- to the public,^together sufficiently reported *16 study and fund, insurance and a of the state ministration private by used of classifications plan of adoption underwriting for companies insurance casualty business, informed, impression inadequate give but might, and we upon which expert opinion framing the new draw aid presume did, fairly may group. .
Opinion 259U. S. of the Court. . ' seek at, What how did they aiming was it were they a hitting upon heed of accomplish it? We not be sure correct, complete, explanation. Upon much léss a the.gen- presumption questioned referred to the must group erál. unless it stand, were demonstrated to a moral certainty, beyond doubt, reasonable could not grouping on possibly explained be reasonable grounds.
Let us assume that after four years’ practical experience in the operation Compensation Law, by aided intensive studies of the Commission, legislature was satisfied with the law as well suited to the needs of the did not far people, except go enough that it and left un much unclassified ground covered where undefined and undefinable industrial virtually hazards remained. It was farm out, before, desired to as laborers and leave domestic servants; upon simple grounds, a classification sustained in full the expressing doubtless far from reasons that had New York Central R. R. Co. legislature, actuated the White, 243 U. S. let,us it this, suppose
Aside was desired extend as far as practicable benefits the law. from the ad- attempt go ministrative abandon the fur- standpoint; ther in as hazardous because of the occupations grouping all described, include -they remaining names which in a minimum, single a fixed businesses, group, above treat hazardous, questions more or less and leave them all as as hazard, and degree proper group- to the particular themselves, to be as between worked out ing businesses light experience, according Commission by the insurance casualty of private companies, to the methods existing groups. with the done already was Not at ignored? all; hazard rather inherent actual Was universal, incapable but virtually being treated was statutory fixed or classified rules defined precisely light easily treated experi- more advance, and of a law which part oper- new ence; *17 v. & GOW n Opinion of the Court. 503. vacuo, not nearly may guide, experience as but
ates, actual inherent hazard and to the ex- where there is only it tent that extends. or operatives regu- four workmen why begin But ” necessary It to Possible answer: larly employed? where; it is somewhere; must decide begin hazard, inherent there is some actual to reasonable believe em- are operatives where few four workmen even as may no more than arise though it be ployed steadily, em- besides, an injuring other; each their danger or operatives as four workmen many who has as ployer on to have may be counted reasonably employed, regularly which the basis be made payroll account four, insurance; below state compute premiums of admin- the cost hardly pay would the business perhaps loss, to distribute istration, hardly give'opportunity of insurance which runs general principle according to the Compensation Law. throughout employer responsibility But extend why separate occupations employ whose others in the same employer, answer: It is the Possible non-hazardous? single in a or establish commingles business who himself doing more hazardous with those doing the ment those if it is If it work, practicable done. be less hazardous separate presumably on the Commis carry payrolls, them adjust fixing the discretion to amount sion has the under or the deposited premium to be securities § possible Further answer: The difficulty rate under § subject; years practical experi inherent extremely found that in the varied ence, it had been industry, disabling or organization fatal in complex juries expected, ways least when occur charac industry particular described. The any legis teristic of be could called hardly predict, lature any more who employer, was to and to injured; than the confine strictly casualty insurance to those cost who were
Opinion of the Court. 259 ti. S. ”, sure to be might casualties baffle the- even of efforts the experienced legislators who framed second group Accidents cannot be relied upon symmetrical to follow-the of group description; lines this is a difficulty that showed *18 itself under the as groups they before, stood and led to the of the definition of amendment employee ”. Even in cannot, clerks salesmen this busy day, be confidently treated as immune from hazards; industrial if a general rule declared, must be it would be safer to say, on the basis of experience, that no occupation is free from in hazard, say dustrial than to that any specified occupation Even probable is free. or oversights want of vision of employer appreciable are an of danger source to clerks, Co., as Joyce witness v. Eastman Kodak 182 App. Div. where clerk a maker of photographic employed supplies (classed cameras and as in hazardous group 23) but in clerical duties no having direct connection manufacture, injured with the because of a defect of chair which she was A sitting at work. sug like gestion us, arises the case before where the employer insured the chauffeurs who drove the trucks with mer to the stations, various but failed to insure the chandise salesmen, overlooking fact that they also occasionally subjected.to in the line peril duty. were It may be ob that these cases are not jected typical; but the legislature an may realized, have element of the problem with they dealing, proverbial, were what indeed is that which do conform to types; they accidents not that are one thing happen simply they because are accidents. The ’’— imaginary; they cases particular actually occurred, to the brought Compensation test were Law. have had may the best of reasons for be strange happening that others were lieving rather fre busy, bustling population great, quently Em an while clerk’s or State; pire individual salesman’s in danger were less than perhaps limb life and indi v & t^RINSKY. GOW Opinion of the Court. machinist’s, they were in yet appreciable danger; vidual and salesmen than machinists; more clerks there were would be times, naturally, they employed many machinists, or other “workmen business same any seeming incongruity operatives”; unfairness together under them grouping CompensationyLaw the, through operation care of law be taken may experience; to the tests of according second itself, sense, beyond in the large nothing, cost will expense^ happen if should to reach administration, where indus non-existent; it will not be more hazard is burden trial prove be, losses where the industrial such some than do exist. hazards suggest again, venture to what been so we has
And employer the common have been before, that hinted link in downtown between workmen mysterious far 125 scattered salesmen so Manhattan and the removed *19 n may The group from labor. dangers charge industrial have found it losses impracticablei him to ¡seeking without out whom it against industry took the expenses; other hence industries as pay falls to actually holding organized, them each em- found they “ in employ as to all in his the same responsible ployer establishment”, or etc., or about the same business ip Commission par- the Industrial to determine leaving are or great small, whether the hazards ticular cases required should be employer se- whether deposit advance, premium in what-amount'"what curities mattefs, doubtful to ex- be, all ¡'according ought rate to con- employer competent confident perience; “ or four more or requiring oper- business duct yorkmen ” be relied to make a upon' profit regularly atives other premiums, insurance like ex- his payroll, above penses. York, by constitutional of-New State amendment^ State, due this lawof for that system process made
has TERM, 1921. McReynolds JJ., dissenting.. 259 S.U. McKenna, , extending the addition say unable to We are degree State has the least ex- 45-the second imposed by the limitations the Fourteenth Amend- ceeded ment.
Judgment affirmed. Mr. Justice with whom McReynolds, concurred Mr.' McKenna, dissenting. Justice The New York Workmen’s Compensation Law pro- vides : “ 2. Application. Compensation provided § for in this shall be chapter payable injuries sustained or death in- f<?r by employees engaged curred in the following hazardous employments: ... '. 45. All Group other employments not hereinbefore enumerated carried on any person, firm or corporation in which there or employed four or more work- or operatives men regularly, in the same business or in or establishment, about the same either the premises or away at plant from the plant the employer, any under contract of hire, express implied, oral or written, except farm laborers and domestic servants.” ” By subdivision employee defined § as—
“A person engaged one of occupations enumerated in section two or who is in the service of an employer whose principal business that of on carrying or conducting a employment upon hazardous premises or at the plant, or in the course his employment away plant *20 of his employer; shall not include farm laborers or domestic servants.” Amusements, Inc.,
In
v. Addison
Europe
“
2,
employ-
has classified certain
legislature,
The
§
right
compen-
has
hazardous,
given
as
ments
employ-
in such hazardous
engaged
employees
sation
ments.
“
1916,
(Laws of
4, 3
of subdivision
By
§
amendment
compensation,
entitled to
to be
2),
employee,
an
622,
c.
§
the time of
.engaged
himself
at
to be
required
longer
is no
he is an
work.
It is sufficient
in hazardous
accident
Matter
Dose v.
business.
hazardous
such
employee
Co.,
“We do not by this extension of of classification its powers exceeded intimated, may be, It as above employments. hazardous such at not hazardous becomes ordinarily that a business done or machinery operated manual work is times-when its main purpose. connection can extend the benefits not the Whether or employments irrespective all of work- of compensation time, this upon, not called at hazards we are men’s decide.” this court have upheld former opinions
Apparently they acts the claim that against compensation workmen’s thereby freely deprive to contract right destroy theory of law due process without property losses arising per- may charge pecuniary the State are em- industry, when men injuries against sonal “If hazardous gain. in. ployed occupations hazardous ” be there must phrase, is not a mere empty occupations And enough. is not declaration legislative real hazard — of in- possibility the mere more than something hazard is always present. is jury which the court below have so construed
Opinions employing if a merchant while challenged provisions City, York no one of them New five hundred clerks Act, employ should Compensation within the Workmen’s Buffalo, nail boxes at all signs up paint four workmen , immediately come under the act. The his clerks would City York New cannot of a clerk stationed occupation because four workmen are simply be rendered hazardous occupation that an argue- at To Buffalo. employed GOW v. KRINSKY. & McReynolds McKenna, JJ., dissenting. hazardous because one some therein has received injuries personal helpful. Many have suffered fatal eating, eating accidents while but hardly could called If, suggested by hazardous. the court below, “ it was *22 a risk to be in an employment considered where four or more manual laborers or operatives were engaged” else, then irrespective anything assumption is con- trary experience. to common
If the power State has to declare an employer liable whenever his is employee injured, irrespective of hazard, the discussions heretofore indulged which treated hazard as important were unfortunate and if misleading. But wholly element can be disregarded, then considera- tion must be to the given classification adopted by the New York statute in its relation to equal protection clause. declared, As often classification permissible when rational. But what reason is possible there for im- posing liability favor of a employees hundred other- wise outside of simply statute compensation because their hire employer has found it desirable to four men to away do manual work in a or trenches miles shop dig the hundred serve? only where place Jeffrey Manufacturing Blagg, Such cases as Co. v. Light Co., Texas U. S. and Middleton v. Power & 571, classifications there pertinent. the obvious truth that the negli rested approved more likely to be a gence a fellow servant cause establishments, employing many in the injury large may risk be different their that assumed service, and or ones,” smaller some such than establishments “ sufficiently be sim patent, declared to other distinction familiar.” ple and in error the plaintiff case is said
In present required to com- peculiar into put he mechanics solely employed because Krinsky pensate the station where away from at a bench miles hammer 9545° —23-34 TERM, 1921. (cid:127)
Syllabus. 259 TJ.S. candy chewing gum, qiagazines, Krinsky papers, sold his water to soap a little applied and sometimes equal protection process I both the due hands. think forbid. of the Amendment clauses AMER- OF COMPANY PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE ICA CHEEK. OF STATE OF
ERROR TO THE ST. COURT APPEALS, LOUIS MISSOURI. 5, 1922. June Argued 1922. Decided
No. 149. March every requiring corporation Missouri, Law The Service Letter any furnish, upon request, to em- doing business State service, letter, signed by leaving discharged its ployee, when manager, setting forth the nature and dura- superintendent or stating truly corporation and the cause his tion of service arbitrary with freedom of leaving, is not an interference of his liberty amounting deprivation property without to a contract *23 P. process law. 534. due regulatory power‘of requirement is within the the State over
2. This 536, . Pp. corporations. 544. foreign and domestic deny equal protection of does requirement laws 3. The corporations and P. being not of individuals. made of imposes on no restriction the States 4. The Federal Constitution liberty silence, speech, privacy or the protective freedom of corporations. P. of individuals 543.. agreement holding that an of several 5. A decision of a state court companies monopoly of line of having a insurance insurance employ city, years would within that neither two business discharged been from or left service any man who had of either unlawful, sustaining against others, an action one of the employee damages resulting companies its former deprive property agreement, does not the defendant of without law in violation of the Fourteenth process of Amendment. due P. 547. 1916, when properly as amended a case is Jud. Code 6. Under § involving constitutionality of error because of a on writ here questions which in themselves warrant review statute, other federal certiorari,
only by will determined also. P. affirmed. W. S.