Rosebud County news. [volume] (Forsyth, Mont.) 1901-1906, 1902-03-13
EMPLOYERS, LIABILITY.
A Plan Beneficial to Both WORKING
man and Boss.


but has been already adopted in one form
or another by a number of corporations
in the United States. Its essential fea-
lures are as follows: Every employer, as
prerequisite for employment, is to COM
pei the employe to insure himself against
death and accident for a certain amount,
say $1,000, either with company in
which the employer is interested or with
one which is independent; the employer.
II necessary, paying part Of the pre-
miums. In such cases the policy is to
contain a provision that, in case an at
tempt is made to recover damages of the
employer under his common law liability
Tor negligence, no recovery can be had
on the insurance policy in question. This
method gives the employee choice of
remedies, but takes away neither. 1t Sc
cures to the injured man compensation
for his injuries in the form of insurance
money, in cases where his employer
would not be liable under the common
law and where, therefore, no recovery
could be had against him, as in cases of
contrlbutory negligence. 1t does not,
however, release the employer from the
liability to which he is legally subject UNI
der the common law. 1t is Of paramount
Importance to the community, as well as
to the injured man himself that such a
person should have some means of sup
port. Every cripple who is unable to re-
cover damages from his employer be-
comes OF necessity a burden on the COM
munity. Accordingly, the corporations or
trusts that would institute such a system
ana provide for that support would be-
come agencies of great public good. The
courts nave time and again held that an
employer cannot by any means contract
against liability for his own negligence.
But in such cases. that is, in cases where
the negligence of the employer is beyond
doubt and the insurance comparatively
small the employee could and would re-
sort TO his common law remedy against
his master. In all other cases, however,
cases of doubt, of contributory negligence
and OF assumption of risk--an election
would. of course be made to hold the in
surance company liable on it's policy, as
all that would be necessary to entitle the
beneficiary to recover would be actual
proof of the occurrence of the accident
without regard to the defenses which the
employer might interpose if he were
sued.
This plan would put an end to the
temptation of manufacturing a case
against the employer and of forcing him
TO make some sort of a settlement on the
theory that it would be cheaper to pay a
Few hundred dollars than to waste a
Thousand in defending an action 1t
would, however. put an end to the boil
STEERING up of doubtful cases, that is. to
that part of the litigation which brings
d1scredit upon the community, upon the
administration of justice and upon the
legal profession. That the employer
could well afford to bear a part Of the
cost of the premiums in such cases there
can be but little doubt, since the system
would save him the cost of defending
many unwarranted actions On the other
hand, no great hardship would be suf-
fered by the employee if he were REQUIRED
to insure against accidents for which his
employer could not be blamed and for
which. without such insurance, there
could be no recovery. The validity of
such contracts or policies has been fire.
Quently upheld by the corrts-Andrew A.
Bruce, in the March Forum