Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1910-10-19
NEWARKERS FLAY
COURT METHODS
IN ACCIDENT CASES
DeplOre Procedure and Whimsi,
cal Juries in Employers
Liability Brief.
MANUFACTURERS FAVOR
COMPULSORY INSURANCE
Arguments for Amendments
Made Before State Commits
siOn's Hearing at Camden.
Special to the Newark star

George r. Howe presented a brief in
behalf of the manufacturers, covering
the important points of employers la
hility how under consideration by the
commission Among the Newarkers
taking part in the proceedings are
Joseph S. Mundy, Eugene Merz, Will
lam Roemer, w. J. Bornemann, Lewis
Straus, George w. Ketcham, Louis V.
Aronson, James Flockhart, Franklin
Phillips and Ludwig F. Mergott.
Following is an abstract of Mr..
Howe's address:
AS to the court and jury system for
fixing responsibility, your petitioners
would put on record their emphatic
disapproval of present procedure, offer
ing in support of our attitude these
REASONS;
~Disapproves Court Procedure.
L. Because of the delays between the
bringing of an action and the trial
thereof.
2. Because of increase of costs, occa-
stoned through loss of time to all
parties to the suit, loss of time on the
part of the court over the settlement of
technicalities injected by paid attor-
neys, and because of the interminable
delays before a decision can be rem
dered.
s. Because lawyers fees and court
expenses in case of recover usually
eat up one-half of the damages. and
his fact often deters poor workmen
from bringing suit.
4. Because juries have been most in
consistent in assessing damages. Under
apparently similar circumstances juries
have set the most diverse values on
human life, due. no doubt, to the habit
of juries bringing in compromise YER
diets.
Liability Insurance.
5. Because large employers and
liability insurance companies have all
the advantages in court. with their per-
feet machinery for getting evidence
and the employment of highly-paid
lawyers having special training and
ability in that kin of work.
6. Because. owing to the right to APP
peal from court to court, the poor liti-
CANT is deprived for a long time of his
damages, put to great expense. and fire.
uuently is compelled to abandon tt
case forslack of funds.
Employers. are not in favor OF a
system whereby employees shall be
compensated for accidents without re-
gard to negligence. The employer at
the present time is compelled to as
sumo the entire loss for damage done
his machinery. the waste of stock and
material, damage from explosion, the
w%recking of an engine or costly ma
chinery and other form of damage In
the various lines of industry resulting
from undue carelessness and neglect on
the part of employees. without legal
right to obtain compensatory damages
for such negligence.
Responsibility of Individual.
In all fairness to the employer, the
employee should at least be made ha-
BILE for his negligence to his own per-
sonal safety, and we contend that any
law which. will permit or recognize, III
aps possible way, earelessness. will
send to produce a greater degree of In
FdiffereHce on the part of the employees,
and that the hazard OF accident will
increase proportionately.
We contend that the greater respon-
sibflity that is placed upo the in
dividual to exercise thoughtfulness, and
the more the individual is held dc-
countable. the risk of danger will ne
reduced, and indirectly less expense
will occur and larger benefit accrue.
A compensation act must inevitably
lead to the concentration of all indus
trial effort and to the introduction of
unforeseen conditions, which, according
tov5sr best judgment, will neither be
conducive TO the progress of the nation
or to the happiness or well-being of
those employed in industrial pursuit,
and will If put into general effect
eventually prove to besa mei1ace to u
present form of government.
Higher Court Costs.
Your commission will undoubtedly
concern itself with the changes that
are taking place as regards the cost OF
employers insurance and will note the
trend is involving excessive costs for
legal xpenses-costs that are out OF
all reason, primarily due to the
rapacity of lawyers whose one object
is to pocket fat fees, and you will
recognize the fact that all of these
added costs are expected to be assessed
against the employer, and that there
is an absolute necessity for removing
from the shoulders of the employer
such undue and undetermined burdens,
which he finds himself without power
to provide against.
We would advance an argument,
which, in our judgment, is entitled to
& the largest degree OIL consluerdlloh' ds
against the wisdom of compensation
without regard to negligence, the condi-
tions which now actually obtain under
the English compensation act. Where
as. in the year 1897. when the compensa-
ton act was first adopted, less h a
score of cases We're carried into court;
in 1908 and 1909 over $500 cases were liti-
gated, offering sufficient proof that such
an act has tended to greater neglect on
the part of employees. has created more
numerous questions producing discord
between employer and employee. and
has increased expenditures enormously
for litigation.
In the case of the employer of a large
force, a~ggregating five to ten thousand
men, he has a sufficient number of men
to obtain within his own establishment
an insurable average. The small m
ployer. on the contrary, with but one
helper, or five or ten men, has no way
to distribute such cost or secure him
self In the event of loss.
To give the small manufacturer an
equal privilege. it would be absolutely
necessary to provide a system Of COM
<pulsory insurance for employees.
Considering the fact that most OF the
arguments in avo Of p~enaiizing the