The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1879-05-03 00:00:00

THE LIABILITY OF EMPLOYERS,

In London on Monday night, Mr. Joseph Brown, Q C.,
read a paper'beforethe Law Amendment Society, on the four
Bills now before Parliament for extending the liability of
pudic companies and other employers to tiler servants for
itnjuries arising from accidents. Sir Arthur Hobhouse pre-
t'cled in the first part of the meeting, and Mr. Brassey, M.r.,
subsequently.
31r. Brown commenced by describing the proposals
of Mr. Macdonald's Bill, which Bill abolished any
defence founded on the doctrine of common employ-
ment in the same service' or founded on the fact
that the injured servant knowingly and voluntarily
incurred the risk, and extended not merely to
workmen engaged in mines, collieries, and other
large works, but to all servants in all employ-
ments, and, of course, to domestic servants. In
future, if Mr. Macdonald's Bill passed, every gentle-
L'tian would have to pay his domestic servants for any
in jury caused by a fellow-servant's f suit. These
noivinal liabilities of the master of a house were
triv.\al compared with those which the Bill would put
on large employers of labour, such as the owners of
mines and collieries and railway companies, who had
hundr.uio' of men in their service. From- the returns
made tee Parliament of accidents in mines, collieries, and
railways,, it was certain the Bill would very greatly
increase tte claims for accidents now made on owners.
It was oh vioua that if owners could not stand under
this additional Load and were obliged to cease working,
a large number of workmen would be deprived of
the emplownent by which they had hitherto earned
their living. Mr. Brown urged that the bill was un-
just, and would also be impolitic, inasmuch as it would
take away from the man the need to insure; and he
held that the man who would not forego the price of a
pint a beer weekly to provide against accidents must
accuse his own improvidence if he was thrown upon
the public charity. Moreover, one strong induce-
ment to workmen to exercise some vigilance over their
fellow men would be removed if they were to be all
insured by the employer against accident and to an
unlimited extent.
Mr. Brown then proceeded to discuss the Attorney.
General's Bill making the employers liable to their
own workmen for injuries caused by any "servant in
authority," and said that it carried out in substance the
recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee, and
being carefully drawn so as not to go beyond these
limits presented a strong contrast to Mr. Macdonald's
Bill; but he was unable to see in the Government
Bill any sufficient advantage to justify the extension
of an inequitable rule of law to a new class of cases or
to atone for the violation of principle involved in it.
Mr. Brassey, M.P., speaking for his own Bill, said
that his experience had shown him that railway corn-
ponies did injustice to their servants in eases of
accidents, and he held that railway servants were
liable for accidents in circumstances in which they
were obeying orders, orders which they could not
question, judge, or consider. He held that provision
for proper compensation of men injured under such
circumstances ought to be made.
Mr, Ciark, Q C., while admiring the spirit in which
Mr. Brassey had spoken, supported the views ex-
pressed in the paper.
Sir A. flobhouse spoke against the principle of one
man being rendered liabie for the act of another.
Mr. Macdonald, M.P., contend,-d for the existing
necessity for his measure, and Sir Henry Jackson,
M.P., criticized the various Bills.
Other speakers followed, and thanks were voted to
the reader and chairman.