RAILROAD RELIEF FUNDS. A term ap plied to funds raised by periodical contribu tions of corporation employees, or by them jointly with the corporation, for the purpose of providing relief to the employees in case of injury, and the payment of money to their families in case of death, in the service. They are usually managed jointly by the cor poration and representatives of the em ployees, the business facilities being furnish ed by the corporation, which usually guar antees the funds and undertakes to make good deficiencies. Their management usually constitutes a department of the corporation business. They have been instituted in Eng land and in some of the largest railroad sys tems in the United States. Compulsory con tribution to funds for charitable, financial, etc., purposes, is forbidden in some states. In Massachusetts, acts provide for such so cieties for employees of railroad, street rail road, and steamboat companies.
Members are usually required to contract that the acceptance of relief benefits from the fuiid in case of injury or death shall op erate as a release to the company of all rights of action for damages for injury or death made by, or on behalf of, the member or his legal representatives. Such contracts are sustained as defences to actions for per sonal injuries ; Eckman v. R. Co., 169 Ill. 312, 48 N. E. 496, 38 L. R. A. 750 ; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Bell, 44 Neb. 44, 62 N. W. 314 ; Maine v. R. Co., 109 Ia. 260, 70 N. W. 630, 80 N. W. 315 ; Shaver v. Pennsylvania Co., 71 Fed. 931; Lease v. Pennsylvania Co., 10 Ind/ App. 47, 37 N. E. 423 ; O'Neil v. Iron Co., 63 Mich. 690, 30 N. W. 688 ; Martin v. R. Co., 41 Fed. 125 ; State v. R. Co., 36 Fed. 655 ; 9 Q. B. Div. 357 ; L. R. 3 Q. B. 555.
A provision in a relief agreement that the acceptance of benefits shall bar a suit for damages for personal injury is not contrary to public policy ; Hamilton v. R. Co., 118 Fed. 92; Shaver v. Pennsylvania Co., 71 Fed. 931; Day v. R. Co., 179 Fed. 26, 102 C. C. A. 654 ; contra, State v. Mfg. Co., 18 R. I. 16, 25 Atl. 246, 17 L. R. A. 856 ; Barden v. R. Co., 152 N. C. 318, 67 S. E. 971.
A contract by which, if the member or his representatives accept benefits, he or they thereby release all rights of action against the company, for damages for injury, etc., is valid ; and when the injured party after the right of action has arisen accepts the benefits, he is merely settling for the past; Johnson v. R. R, 163 Pa. 133, 29 Atl. 854. See Reese v. R. Co., 233 Pa. 363, 82 Atl. 461.
But it was held that where, under such a contract, the widow of a member accepted a benefit upon her husband's death, and per sonally released the fund and the company, the contract of the husband did not waive a right of action, and that neither the contract nor the widow's receipt of the benefit dis charged her right of action ; Chicago, B. &
Q. R. Co. v. Wymore, 40 Neb. 645, 58 N. W. 1120. In Miller v. Ry. Co., 65 Fed. 308, the court, on a demurrer to such a defence, up held the demurrer and held the contract and release void, and expressed its surprise at finding that several courts of unquestionable dignity and authority had sustained such de ' fences. This case was affirmed on appeal, though not quite on such broad ground as !I taken below ; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. er, 76 Fed. 439, 22 C. C. A. 264. Where a widow bad collected part. of the benefits and then was defeated in an action on that ground, still she could recover the I residue of the relief benefits; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v, Bigley, 1 Neb. (Unof.) 225, 95 N. W. 344 ; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Healy, 76 Neb. 783, 107 N. W. 1005, 111 N. W. 598, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 198, 124 Am. St. Rep. 830 ; contra, Snyder v. R. Co., 237 Pa. 620, 85 Atl. 991.
Disability means inability .to perform such labor as the injured person was engaged in at the time of his injury or similar labor which would enable him to earn wages equal 1 ly remunerative ; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Olsen, 70 Neb. 570, 99 N. W. 847.
The federal Employers' Liability Act of April 22, 1908, provides that a carrier's lia bility for injuries to an employe is not re leased by his acceptance of benefits from the relief department, but the amount received must be deducted from amount of recovery. This applies to a contract made before the act was passed ; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Finn, 195 Fed. 685, 117 C. C. A. 1.
A rule of a railway relief department which provides that all claims of benefici aries shall be submitted to the superintend ent, with the right of appeal to an advisory committee whose decision shall be final, does not bar the holder of a claim which has been rejected by such committee from the right of action in the courts ; Baltimore & 0. R. Co. v. Stankard, 56 Ohio St. 224, 46 N. E. 577, 49 L. R. A. 381, 60 Am. St. Rep. 745.
An Ohio act which provides that no rail road company shall require any stipulation with any person in or about to enter its employ, whereby such person agrees to waive any right of action. against the company for personal injuries, and that all such agree ments shall be void, is in violation of the fourteenth amendment to the federal consti tution as taking away liberty of contract; Shaver v. Pennsylvania Co., 71 Fed. 931.
A railroad company maintaining a relief department is not thereby engaging in the in surance business, and an agreement by an employe that he will accept benefits from the fund in discharge of any claim for personal injuries is not invalid on that ground; King v. R. Co., 157 N. C. 44, 72 S. E. 801.