New-York tribune., 1907-06-19
EMPLOYERS Liability.
Presidents Proposal Wise, Con-
serUatire and Humane.
To the Editor of The Tribune.

Sir: Referring the recent published utterances
of President Roosevelt to the effect that work
| men should receive a certain. definite and limited
compensation for all accidents in industry. ire
spective of negligence" and the public comments
upon the same various daily papers. I desire to
call your attention TO some considerations show
ing this proposal 10 be eminently wise. conserva-
tive and humane and little more than an enact
ment of a statute in force in England for more
than ten years past
The law on this subject, heretofore and
administered. IS. 10 those gifted with conscience,
who know. simply monstrous.
According to the popular conception any sort of
an accident is simply mine of wealth to the
plaintiff and his attorneys. In reality in four out
of five accident cases. the plaintiff is, in
supposed civilization. absolutely remediless, so
far as his legal" rights are concerned as If he
lived in a state OF barbarsm
The popular notion of the value OF accident
as asset results from the widespread publicity
given to the rendering of a large verdict in favor
of plaintiff when chance of that sort
occurs
To a lawyer such a verdict means next to nothing.
because in the great majority Of instances, owing
to the prevailing tendencies OF all judicial tribunals
to give great consideration to so-caed property
rights distinguished from personal rights,
such verdcts almost invariably upset on ap-
peal or by the trial justice. The real theory pos
slbly unconscious. is that before poor and ig-
ceve such an amount from the pockets of one who
is supposed to have received consideration for 1t
he should have at least two or three runs for his
money. Long before such plaintiff can obtain
a final judgment in his favor he IS willing to
settle for trihing sum. and usually does so
This disposition of the court is particularly no
ceable in cases involving master and servant law.
and much moro rarely in of accidents 10 per-
sons sustaining other relations. This branch OF
the law Is in which there is almost invariably
extreme poverty and destitution on the plaintiffs
side. with wealth and position on the defendants
In Of iDEnr
iy generally exists. The consequent pitiable sur
ferng in of injury 10 employees has attracted
attention in recent years the gross injustice that
now prevails in respect to their obtaining any legal
relief and has led enlightened humanity TO demand
a change.
This sentiment has now found expression in the
utterance of the President, and l venture TO say
that in after years nothing in the of this dis
tnguished man will so much rebound TO his credit
as this latest recommendation on his part II 1t
shall result in general national and state regula-
tion on the lines he has so cogenty indicated
At the present time. speaking of the law of New
York State. with the existing labor law Gaws
of 1887. chapter 4l9 and the employers liability act
of 1892. great improvements as they were upon the
previously existing condition the law stil Is that
even the slightest neglect on the part Of the in
jured employe. resulting in death or the gravest
lifelong injury to himself absolutely dehars such
injured employe and his family from any relief
whatsoever though the employer may have
been guilty OF gross neglect Of proper precautions
and gross violation OF express statutes designed for
the protection OF employees The rule further Is
that IL the enpove's conduct does not come up to
that OF the ideal "of ordinary prudence such
employe is guilty OF Contrbutory negligence, even
though he was doing his best at the time OF the
accident.
The above is no exaggerated statement. Such Is
the law administered to-day in this state, deemed
10 be one of the most enlightened localities in tho
world. tSee Knsley agt. Pratt Jas y. Y. 80 kier-
agt. EiditZ. rs y. i. l4l, for late cases so
illustrating the law as statedD
Is not such a condition absolutely revolving to
any intelligent person whose brain and conscience
are IN normal state2 Is II not perfectly obvious
that the only fair disposition OF case whore both
employe and employer AT fault would he at
least require the employer to pay one half tho
pecunary damages instead Of as now requiring
the party least able endure the whole loss7
(This is tho familiar rule in admiralty lawD In
this letter OF. Of speaking only of the
civil rights OF injured persons and passing
the matter of the practical denial OF Justice IN
nearly all accident cases In the city of New York
at the present time by Of tho fact that the
mere Interpolation OF an answer by defendant pre-
vents the from coming 10 trial for upward OF
two years thereafter. During this time the MANNED
employe and his helpless family must live by char
ity. ana when finally his case comes 20 trial he IS
usually defeated because Of death disappearance
The doctrine known as assumption Of risk" Is
that II is presumed that empoye bargains for
and obtains money wages adequate 10 compensate
him for the ordinary risks OF business including
risks resulting from his negligence and the
1eRligencn Of rracticallv all his fellow servants
This is the theory. In practice IL IS matter OF
common knowledge that outside OF empoyments
requiring high Skill the compensation fixed bears
no relation 70 such dangers. and as the President
well says It IS simply outrageous that tho financial
burden of disability should fall Lpon tho single
injured belong
able to bear #.
Now, then. what is the proposition OF tho Presi-
dent? 1t is simply 20 enact In the United States
statute which has existed in England for than
ten years. entirely familiar 10 lawyers, known
the workingman's compensation act Of 1897,
which act provides n simple. speedy and determi-
nate compensation for all employees in those Occu-
pations known by experience to be especially dan
gerous to wit. railroads. mines. quarries erection
of buildings. factories and more recently 1900
agriculture. (See Dressers Employers Liability.
p 6S0D
Professional representatives Of employers Of labor
and OF the various casualty companies in com
menting upon the President's speech have been
ready with the suggestion that the change OF law
in the respect indicated might result In injustice
10 employers at times. Undoubtedly this may be
so. But how about the scandalous and wicked in
Justice to ths poor and helpless that is almost
universal in respect 20 this matter?
The remedy proposed would accomplish three
things:
!. Place the employe and employer on an equal
plane that both would share the burden OF the
injury from the accident.
2. Make II unnecessary for the empoye to barter
one-third or one-half OF the compensation TO which
he is legitimately entitled to attorney
sist him In effectng a collection.
3. Bring about situation whereby the employer
could, matter Of law and as an act of
charity. be compelled to contribute the support
of the individual injured a legitimate expense
of the business in which such employer Is engaged.
This change in the law must and soon will come
In some shape. as the present situation of the
ploye is nothing short OF intolerable in a Commu-
nifty which processes TO be civilized.
The President. In my Judgment, is right I'm say
ing that the responsibility for the financial loss
from an accident should first be imposed upon the
employers. Ultimately, OF course, the whole
munity must pay for II. GILBERT d. LAMB.
New York. June l2, 1907.
THE NEED OF A LANDOR'S SATIRE.
To the Editor of The Tribune.
Sir: What a pity we have not a Iandor to-day