The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1878-06-22 00:00:00

MASTERS' LIABILITY TO THEIR

SERVANTS:

In London, on Monday night, at a meeting of the
Law Amendment Society, at the offices, 1, Adam.
street, Adelphi, Lord Shand, Judge of the Court of
Session in Scotland, in the chair, a paper by Mr.
Joseph Brown, Q.C., was read, entitled "The ques-
tion of the great companies' and other masters'
liability for accidents to their own servants through
the neglect of fellow-servants: Can it be fairly settled
by making insurance against accidents to a limited
amount compulsory on both master and servant, hav-
ing in view the practice of the friendly societies
established in connection with some of the great raiI-
"%VAT and colliery companies ?"
The learned author, having dilated on the present
state of the law as appertaining to master and ser-
yant, said that whatever differences of opinion existed
Zn the justice of the present law, there could be very
little difference as to the desirableness of some provi-
sion, in the case of accidents, for that large class of
working men who are exposed by the very nature of
their occupation to more than ordinary risk or injury,
or even to loss of life, some provision, in case of
disablement, for themselves, and in case of loss
of life, for their families. Such were the considepa-
tions which induced him to bring forward a pro-
posal for a system of compulsary insurance against
accidents of all men employed in hazardous
trades or occupations. He advocated compulsory
insurance, because, if only voluntary, matters
would be left just as they were, any one who wished
being at liberty to risk his life uninsured, or to insure
in a club, a friendly society, or accident assurance
society. His proposal was this—that all employers
in csrtain hazardous occupations should be prohibited
from employing any men who were not insured against
accidents in some friendly society or insurance com-
',any up to a certain amount; and that the employer
should be bound to contribute a certain proportion of
the expense of insurance, and should be exempt from
further liability. Were this proposal made law it
would compel the employer to see that his servants
was insured against accidents to the amount limited
by law, or else, the employment being contrary to law,
would not bind either party, and the servant might
quit the service at any other time. In the next place,
the proposal would give the sufferer by accident, or
his family, a limited amount only.
Referring to railway accidents, the author pointed
out that, taking the four years from 1872 to 1875 as
an example, it appeared from the report of the Royal
Commission on Railway Accidents published in 1877,
that 2,720 railway servants were killed from their
own want of caution, as against 238 killed from causes
beyond their own control—or very nearly 12 to one.
The proportion of those injured from their own
want of caution vas 7,275, against 1,724 who were
not to blame—or more than four to one. If the killed
and injured were added together, they would amount
to 10,100 in fault, against 2,000 not in fault. Hence
it was seen that a man engaged in a hazardous
occupation stood in need of insurance against his own
neglect or errors, probably in five cases against one in
which he suffers by the errors of others. He appre-
hended no injustice to the masters in hazardous trades,
compelling them by law to contribute to the fund to
this limited extent, for it was only a small security to
the public against throwing disabled men on them for
support.
A discussion followed the reading of the paper, the
author of which was accorded a vote of thanks.