Legal Definitions - three wicked sisters

The term "three wicked sisters" is a historical, informal phrase used to describe three legal doctrines prevalent in 19th-century American law. These doctrines—contributory negligence, the fellow-servant rule, and assumption of the risk—were frequently invoked by courts to deny compensation to workers who suffered injuries on the job. Essentially, they created significant legal barriers that made it extremely difficult for injured employees to successfully sue their employers for workplace accidents.

• Contributory Negligence: This doctrine stated that if an injured worker was found to be even slightly at fault for their own injury, they were completely barred from recovering any damages from their employer.
• Fellow-Servant Rule: Under this rule, an employer was not held responsible for an employee's injury if the injury was caused by the negligence of another employee (a "fellow servant").
• Assumption of the Risk: This doctrine held that by accepting a job, an employee implicitly understood and accepted the inherent dangers and risks associated with that employment. Therefore, if an injury occurred due to a known risk, the employer was not liable.

Combined, these "sisters" often left injured workers without legal recourse, leading to their critical and somewhat pejorative nickname.

Examples:

• Factory Worker Injury: Imagine a worker named John in a textile mill in 1880. John's hand is severely injured when it gets caught in a loom. He sues the mill owner for negligence, claiming the machine was unsafe.

  • The mill owner might argue contributory negligence by pointing out that John momentarily looked away from his work, even for a second, contributing to the accident.
  • The owner could also invoke the fellow-servant rule, claiming that a maintenance worker (a "fellow servant") had improperly oiled the machine earlier, making it malfunction, and thus the owner wasn't directly responsible.
  • Finally, the owner might argue assumption of the risk, stating that working with powerful machinery in a textile mill was inherently dangerous, and John, by taking the job, accepted these known risks.

  In this scenario, any one of these arguments, or a combination, could have been used by a 19th-century court to deny John compensation for his injury.

• Coal Miner's Occupational Illness: Consider a coal miner, Sarah, who suffers a serious lung injury due to poor ventilation and dust accumulation in a mine shaft. She attempts to sue the mining company.

  • The company could argue contributory negligence by claiming Sarah did not wear her protective mask properly, even if the mask was inadequate for the conditions.
  • They might use the fellow-servant rule, asserting that another miner, a "fellow servant," was responsible for operating the ventilation system incorrectly, leading to the hazardous conditions.
  • The company could also claim assumption of the risk, arguing that mining is a notoriously dangerous profession with known health risks, and Sarah accepted these risks when she chose to work in the mine.

  These doctrines would have made it very difficult for Sarah to prove the company's liability and recover damages for her occupational illness.