The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1908-02-16
Application of the
EMPLOYERS Liability Law.

G1llkJ1OyC1 = A1oOA4AlJ Law
Elsewhere on this page today, We
publish an editorial from the Ocala
Banner, in which what is known as
the employers liability law Is adverse
however, in assuming that the law is
intended TO be Of general application
to all cases of accident or injury. The
law simply applies to cases into which
the element of negligence enters, and
IS intended to enable an employee to
collect damages when he has suffered
injury as the result OF negligence on
the part of his employer or of his
fellow-servanf.
But our contemporary argument is
directed against every form of liability
rs well, and it is as faulty in that
respect as its premises are erroneous
In the other.
On what process of reasoning can
we arrive at the conclusion that an
employer who hires an ignorant, in
competent, negligent workman should
be immune from all responsibility for
injuries that may be visited on others
rs a result of that workman's igno-
rance Incompetence, or negligence?
Who Is responsible if the employer
Is not? The workman obviously can
not be held responsible because he has
no property of any kind that can be
levied upon. The only thing that
could possibly be done to him would
be to deprive him of his liberty or his
tife-and that would not help the man
who received the injury
Moreover, why should not the en-
ployer bear the responsibility Nof per-
sonal injuries inflicted through his
own or his employees negligence, as
well as the responsibility of other
damages from the same cause?
When train is wrecked the rail-
road company must stand responsible
not only for the damage done to its
own property. but for that done to
freight or baggage in transit. Why
should personal, physical injury. or
human life be the only things for
which the company is not to be re-
sponsible?
President Roosevelt, in a message
TO congress several months ago. we
believe, advanced the idea that ulti.
pnately every business would have to
be 50 planned and conducted that u
would stand responsible for all pef.
Sonal injuries sustained by anyone as
q result of the operation of the bust
ness The cost of such injuries, it
was argued, would have to be figured
into the operating expenses of the
business, and the price of the ser rice
rendered by the business or of the
commodity sold by It would have to
be based upon such operating ex-
pensesa
A radical idea, you win say But
why not? Let us see how it applies.
When the contractor for a new build |
ing--let us say, for example, the con-
tractor for the. handsome new Blouni
building-fgured on the job, he took |
into consideration many things. He !
calculated the cost OF the steel, the |
hrsck, the concrete, the mails, the |
bolts, the window glass, the thing, tine
wiring, the labor on each different /
part of the work. He made allowances
Tor breakage, for slow delivery OF
freight, for rejected material, for La
Dor difficulties, for bad weather, and
for thousand things which affected
the cost to him of erecting that build /.
ing.
He figured on everything but the
loss Of human life or the INJURY Of hu.
man bodies.
Why are not human life and human
bodies as much entitled to con ;.dera,
hon IN such a contract and sucn a
work as the stone and mortal', sIeeI 4
and labor which enter into the Cen
strlsction of the building? t,
Even the cost of the horses and
brutes-which were re-
1uired TO haul the material has its
place in the figures which represent
he cost of the building and the 10
ury or death of one of them wounl
nave to be charged against such cost
But nowhere does the value of hu
nan bodies or of human life enter in.
% the calculation.
Ne do not mean to say that the ,