The daily morning journal and courier., 1907-05-24

committee to gather extensive evidence as to the practical effect of these mod iacatios of the rule of Fellow Servant in different jurisdictions, but so far as 1t goes it seems to point toward not very satisfactory result. On account of the general expectation that these acts brought within their scope a larger number of cases than they actually did, the inevitable tendency has been to in crease litigation and cause the bring ing of many cases which were without merit: all of which has fostered and fed the baneful practice of litigation instigated by lawyers who take dam age cases on a contingent basis, the re- suit of such litigation involving large amount of expense to employers in de- lending such suits, and even in sue cessful eases the employees not being the ones most beneficially affected
 Speaking of the English Employers Liability Act, Lord Justice Fry re- marked
 That statute is one which has creat- ed considerable difficulty in different cases, and l must observe that it ap- pears to me to be piece of legislation which does not carry into effect any one simple idea but is, on the contrary, compromise, so to speak, between two conflicting kinds of legislation CT se- rles of thought on this subject of the liability of the master to the employe.
 Wolff in his work on Employers Lia- bility, in speaking of this act, says:
 Tt has only very partially, more by annr6hnnciat,0 t.rI,f6 f6I h side, than by direct efforts likely to en- dure, reduced the number of accidents, and only very partially, irregularly and insufflciently provided compensation for injured workmen."
 The Commonwealth of Massachusetts under a resolve of the general assem- bly, approved June 5, 1903, appointed committee of five, of which the Hon. Carroll D. Wright was chairman, to in- vestigate this whole subject, and in very exhaustive report and one which is entitled to considerable weight, after considering the relations between em- ployers and employees both under the common law and the Employers Lia- bility Act, enacted in 1902, in that state this committee said: Tt may truthful ly be asserted that neither employers nor employees are satisfied with the present law pertaining to personal in- iuries to employees"
 In a report of the Bureaeu of Labor and Industrial Statistics of the state of Wisconsin, in which careful study was given to this question of employers li- ability to employees, it is said: "The general dissatisfaction caused by sys- tenn of employers liability acts in it's practical operation is not to be denied. ], The inevitable result of such system is to arouse distinct animosities be- tween the two essential factors of in ] dustrial production, which condition is much to be avoided
 1 "lt is doubtful whether practical solution of the difficulty lies in the amending in any particular the exist ing Employers Liability laws"
 | WCrlingmen's Compensation Acts. | In the United States, as is thus seen, this question of employers liability for | injuries to employees in the course of their employment has been treated al- 1 most entirely from purely legal ! standpoint-by increasing the grounds | upon which an employe might sue his employer, based on the theory of a l wrong committed In England and the i European states the question, of re- cent years has been studied and treat l ed more as an economic and social ! problem than as legal one. It is held that the treatment of the subject by considering the employers liable as for wrong does not produce satisfactory results It is shown that besides the accidents which occur in the operation of industries for which damages may be recovered under laws holding the employer liable on the ground of negli- genee, that there are an equal number Of accidents for which no recovery car
 be had against the employec because
 they were unavoidable and incidental
 to the operation of the industry; and
 that it is hard and unjust that the em-
 ployes and their families should 5eai
 the result of these injuries absolutely
 alone. It is also argued that under
 the purely legal theory it is often diff 'Hcult Tor an eHplOye to prove neSll-
 gence even when there is negligence
 and so he fails to secure damages
 which justly belong to him. It is saiC
 that employers at present insure thei
 liability in casualty companies whicl
 come in at once upon the happening O
 an injury and with large force oi
 trained men at their disposal oppose
 recovery by an employe, often left des
 titute of the resources to carry on thu
 necessary litigation. It is claimed tha
 under a system which makes negli
 gence on the part of the employer tn,
 basis of recovery and does not limit tn,
 damages which may be recovered, tha
 certain class of lawyers make it
 business of securing negligence case,
 on a contingent basis, trying them al
 and hoping to recover in sufIlcien
 number to reap a handsome reward
 even if they fail in the majority; tha
 under this system the relation of tn,
 employer to his employees becomes
 strained and embarrassing, and tha