The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1907-07-15
Employers Liza bility.

In an address at jamestown on June
10 Mr.. ROOSEVELT, with characteristic
vigor, declared that 1T is neither just,
expedient nor humane that workmen
should assume all the ordinary risks
Of their occupation, an expression used
by an English authority in 1887. Mr..
ROOSEVELT, in his temporary enthusiasm
over his immediate subject, went even
further and declared it to be revolving
to judgment and sentiment alike" that
the sufferers from injuries Of any kind
sustained in the course Of daily occupa-
ton should bear the financial burden
entailed by such injury. mo law is
more emphaticslly needed he said,
than is the national employers LA
bility law.
T~wenty-four hours earlier or twenty
four hours later Mr.. ROOSEVELT probably
believed that a new forestry law, or the
rounding out" OF the railway rate
bill, or receiverships for all the trusts,
or some other particular measure then
uppermost in his mind was quite as
"emphatically needed" as an employers
liability law. Whether such is or is
not the case, our vehement President
called attention to a matter about which
a good deal may be heard next winter
if he does not then find himself too
deeply absorbed in other matters of
equally emphatic need.
II is an easy guess that the Presidents
burning interest in this question at that
time and place was due 10 his perusal
Of a document published in Bulletin
No. 20 by the bureau OF labor.S The
article, covering some seventy-hve pages
of that publication, reviews the history
and gives the form of what is known
as the British workmen's compensation
acts. With us such legislation is better
known under the title of employers
liability acts. The question involved is
the extent to which employers shall be
held liable for any or all injuries 10 their
workmen. MIR. ROOSEVELT takes the
position that there Ia no sound Co
nomic reason for distinction between
accidents caused by negligence and
those which are unavoidable, and the
law should be such that the payment
Of those accidents 10y the employert
will become automatic instead OF being
a matter for a lawsuit This is, in
general, the scheme Of the British work.
mems compensation act Of 1905.
Although the common law Of England
makes the employer somewhat loosely
responsible for injuries incurred by a
servant in the course Of his work, the
first test Of of the most important
features Of the matter appears to have
been made in 1897, when Lord ABINoER
declared hat "a master could not be
held responsible for an accident to his
servant If such accident were caused
by the negligence OF a fellow servant
That is, il one workman carelessly left
a trap door open and another workman
fell through the door and broke his neck
the employer could not be held financially
responsible. The British act Of 1897,
amended in 1900 and amplifed by the
law Of 1876, which supersedes it, took
the ground that sound economic doc
trine requires that the employer shall
idhc MI VIC OtulIhul dLu OAtt w III
risks involved in the carrying on Of his
industry" and shall be held financially
responsible to his injured workmen
under all except a limited number OF
exceptional cases. This opinion Mr..
ROOSEVELT appears to have adopted in
its fullest Interpretation.
Under the common law the burden Of
proof Of injury and its cause or causes
rests with the plaintiff. Prosecution Of
such suits often involves a delay. and
expense not within the means OF the
injured workman. In the event of death
the heirs are equally handicapped. The
modern system virtually declares the
responsibility of the employer. The
British act, which became effective on
the first of this month, includes a schedule
Of compensations covering nearly all
readily conceivable cases OF death or
injury. It declares, in effect, that il q
workman is killed or injured while en-
gagged in doing his work the employer
shall pay as specified in che schedule.
The essential arguments in the matter
are two in number. One proceeds on
the assumption that an employer. know
ing that he is financially liable in the
case of death or injury, will equip his
premises, his machinery and his appli-
ance Of whatever kind with the m6st
efficient safety devices possible and
thereby reduce materially the number Of
accidents. The other Is that the nnan-
cial burden in accident cases win fall
on society at large instead Of on in
dividuals who are unable TO bear the