The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-02-26
SEES EVILS IN BILL
DEFECTS POINTED OUT IN KINGS
 LIABILITY MEASURE.
Interest of Damage Suit Attor- neys Who Are Working
 for It.

An Ex-Senator says:
 ''The King bill is so adroitly drawn that the layman, or one who is not conversant with this intricate subject of the law, might be misled by the impression that is attempted to be created by some. that no material changes are thereby made in the em- ployers liability act. l might say, however, that if there are no material changes proposed by MT. Kings substi- tute. why take up the time of the busiest legislature in the history Of the state, one that has caused so much suspense to the indutrial districts of Alabama. with its passage?
 The present employers liability act is found in section 17i9 of the code. Colonel Sam Will John introduced 1t in the legislature in the sos. It is copy of an English statute on the sub- ject known as Lord Campbelfs act. and its every section has been con- strued by the Supreme Court of Ala bama. It has stood on the statute books since that time without amend ment. The best law writers in the country refer to 1t as an example of fairness. both to the employer and em- ploye, and it is the result of the wis., dom and experience of ages. The inn pression sought to be created that MT. Kings substitute makes no material change, Is erroneous
 AbrOgates Salutary Principles.
 His bill entirely abrogates the sal utary principle of assumption of risk, Under it neither the trial court nor the Supreme Court can adjudge an em- ploye guilty of contributory negll- gence as matter of law: the dam ages allowed in death cases have been increased without limit and in many ways the liability of the employer is extended and increased. No illustra- tions are needed to show that these proposed changes are material and significant.
 From Damage Suit Lawyers.
 If the proposed change in the law was a campaign issue 1 did not hear of it. The clamor for its passage seems to come largely from the dam age suit lawyers. and they have selec- ted this as the psychological moment to ride into passage on the antirail- road wave. MI Kings bill however, is not confined to the usual object of attack-railroads and mining compa- nies On the other hand. 1t applies to cotton mills, saw mills, gins, grist mills. storekeepers. contractors. build CTS, farmers and every man or woman who employees labor, whether corpora tion, firm. or individual. It will work greater hardship on the smaller em- plover who cannot afford to adopt the newest and latest inventions. am led to make this interesting statement, be- cause of the insertion in the defect clause the word insufficient In one of the sections of Mir Kings bill 1t Is provided that the damages In death cases shall not only be the pecuniary value of the employees life but also in addition thereto such damages to prevent homicides as the jury may assess. The pecuniary damages are commonly called compensatory dam ages. So 1t will be seen that an em- ployer may be made to pay vindictive or punitive damages even in a case where the servant himself was guilty of contributory negligence, and to that extent the author of his own death.
 My recollection is that another sec ton of MT. Kings bill seeks to re- write the law on the masters duty to maintain a safe place for the servant to work. Heretofore the employer could discharge that duty by employ ing a skilled and competent man for that purpose. Under the King bill the duty is absolutely non-deleEable, and no matter how skilled. how careful or how competent your foreman is. you must be mulcted in damages if the place Is not safe.
 From a practical standpoint Mir. Kings bill will have a tendency to make the servant more careless. more venturesome and take chances that an ordinary man would not undergo. Therefore 1t will not tend to decrease accidents. From a commercial stand point. 1t will either drive employers liability insurance companies out of the state entirely or else cause them to so increase their insurance premi- ums that few people can protect them selves with policies of insurance.
 T know of no reason for any change in the law that Col. John gave us way back in the sos and 1t would seem that from the ease with which verdicts are now recovered against the employer, that the real beneficiaries of the pro- posed measure, the damage suit law yers, do not really need it,"