Ives v. South Buffalo Railway Co.
94 N.E. 431, 201 N.Y. 271, 1911 N.Y. LEXIS 1246 (1911)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statute that imposes liability upon an employer to compensate an employee for an injury sustained in the course of employment, without any fault on the part of the employer, is an unconstitutional deprivation of liberty and property without due process of law under the state and federal constitutions.
Facts:
- The New York legislature enacted a compulsory Workmen's Compensation Act, which applied to several enumerated 'dangerous' occupations.
- The Act made employers in these industries liable for any injury to a workman arising out of and in the course of the employment.
- This liability was imposed regardless of any fault or negligence on the part of the employer.
- The only exception to the employer's liability was if the injury was caused by the 'serious and willful misconduct' of the employee.
- South Buffalo Railway Co. was a railroad corporation engaged in an occupation covered by the Act.
- An employee of South Buffalo Railway Co. sustained an injury during his employment.
- The injury was not caused by any negligence on the part of South Buffalo Railway Co.
Procedural Posture:
- The employee, Earl Ives, sought compensation from his employer, South Buffalo Railway Co., under New York's new Workmen's Compensation Act.
- The controversy was submitted to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York upon an agreed statement of facts to test the constitutionality of the Act.
- The Appellate Division upheld the statute as constitutional and rendered judgment in favor of the employee, Ives.
- The employer, South Buffalo Railway Co., as appellant, appealed the judgment to the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a New York statute that makes employers in certain enumerated hazardous industries liable for employee injuries sustained in the course of employment, regardless of the employer's fault, violate the due process clauses of the New York State Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Werner, J.
Yes, the statute violates the due process clauses of the New York and U.S. Constitutions. Imposing liability without fault constitutes a taking of property without due process of law. The court reasoned that under the common law, a person could not be held liable for injuries to another without being at fault, a principle fundamental to property rights when the constitutions were adopted. The statute's attempt to make an employer an insurer of its employees' safety, based on economic and sociological arguments, cannot subvert this fundamental legal principle. The court further held that this Act was not a valid exercise of the state's police power, because it did not regulate the employer's conduct to improve safety or health, but instead simply transferred property from a non-culpable employer to an injured employee. This act of taking property from 'A' and giving it to 'B' without A's consent or fault is beyond the legislature's power.
Concurring - Cullen, Ch. J.
Yes, the statute is unconstitutional. While the legislature has broad power to abolish common law defenses like the fellow-servant rule or assumption of risk, it cannot compel a person engaged in a lawful vocation to indemnify another for an injury unless that person is at fault. The law does not merely shift a risk, as the physical suffering from an injury is a law of nature; it creates a new financial liability based on neither contractual obligation nor fault. This is fundamentally different from permissible regulations that prescribe rules for safety in the workplace. Imposing liability on an individual or existing corporation that has done no wrong and asks no favors from the government, except for general protection, is an unauthorized deprivation of property.
Analysis:
This decision represents a significant historical moment in the conflict between traditional common law principles and modern social welfare legislation. By striking down one of the nation's first compulsory workers' compensation laws on substantive due process grounds, the court established that liability must be based on fault. This ruling became a major obstacle for the progressive-era workers' compensation movement, prompting New York to amend its state constitution in 1913 to explicitly authorize such no-fault systems. The case exemplifies the judiciary's role during this period in scrutinizing economic regulations and protecting established property rights against legislative reform.
