The Telegraph-courier. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1888-1946, 1910-12-08
FARMERS TO BEAR THEIR PART
New Bill May Not Meet With Popular
Favor On Account of the Increase in
the Number of People to be Effected
by it.

If the industrial insurance bill as
now proposed should be passed by the
next legislature, farmers and house
holders would be liable for injuries to
those employed by them.
This fact was brought out in the
hearing which the special joint legis-
lative committee held in the school
board rooms in the Milwaukee city
hall Tuesday afternoon. Unless farm
ers and householders filed notice of
their intention to come under the pro-
visions Of the act, the same as manu-
facturers, they would be shorn of de-
Tense except contributory negligence
in case Of suit and if they did come in
they would be liable for damages to the
same extent as manufacturers.
This is the first time this subject
has been brought out and it is possible
that in the bill which the COMMITTEES
win submit provision will be made to
omit these two classes Of employers.
Otherwise any laborer except that Of
causaul" kind will come under the,
working of the bill if it should be-
come law.
The legislative committee intended
to complete its hearing at this sitting,
but Judge Carpenter, chairman of the
Merchants and Manufacturers associa-
tion legislative committee, informed
Senator Sanborn, chairman of the joint
legislative committee, that the commit
tee had not time to investigate the bill
as it wished and would like a delay
for that purpose. Senator sanborn
said the committee did not wish to
hurry matters and after consultation
an adjournment was announced until
Monday morning at 10 O'Clock.
Much of the time on Tuesday was
consumed in discussion of section l
and section 4 Of the fourth tentative
bill. Section provides:
In any action to recover damages
for a personal injury sustained with
in this state by an employee while en-
gagged in the line of his duty as such,
or for death resulting from personal in
jury SO sustained, in which recovery is
sought upon the ground of want of
ordinary care Of the employer or of
any officer. agent or servant of the
employer, it shall not be defense.
81. That the employee, either express
ly or implicitly assumed the risk of the
hazard complained of.
t2, That the injury or death was
caused in whole or in part by the want
of ordinary care of fellow servant. )"
Section 4, which Senator Sanborn
said was the key to the whole situa-
tion, is as follows:
"Seetion 4. Liability for the com
pensation hereinafter provided for, in
lieu of any other liability whatsoever,
shall, without regard to negligence, ex-
list against an employer for any per-
sonal injury accidentally sustained by
his employe, and for his death, if the
injury shall proximately cause death,
in those cases where the following con-
ditions of compensation occur:
III. Where, at the time of the acct
dent, both the employer and employee
are subject to the provisions of this
act according to the succeeding sec
tions hereof.
s'2. Where, at the time Of the acct
dent, the employee is performing ser
vice growing out of and incidental to
his employment, and is acting within
the line of his duty as such.
H3. Where the injury is proximately
caused by accident either with or with
out negligence, and is not so caused
by the willful misconduct of the en-
ploye.
"And where such conditions of COM
pensation exist for any personal in
jury or death, the right to the recov-
cry of such compensation pursuant to
the provisions of this act, and acts
amendatory thereof, shall be the exclu-
sive remedy against the employer for
such injury or death; in all other cases
the liability of the employer shall be
the same as if this and the succeeding
sections of this act had not been pass
ed, but shall be subject to the provis-
ion Of the preceding sections of this
act.