The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1911-02-15
THE DEATH LIMIT.
New Haven Union.)


New Haven manufacturers and
concerned about the proposed change
in the law regulating the liability Of
employers for accidents to their en-
ployes. One hearing on this subject
has already been held before the jul
dietary committee in Hartford and the
attitude of some Of the manufacture
ers On this matter came as a COM
plete surprise to many present.
One would naturally expect the en-
ployers of q large number of hands
to oppose an increase in the present
limit of $1,000. One certainly would
not expect them to declare for un-
limited damages in death cases leaving
the amount to the jury. Yet this Is
exactly the position that was assumed.
At the hearing it was announced by
President Pope Of the State Manu-
facturers' association that he believ-
ed a. majority Of that organization ia
vored abolishing the limit, and leaving
it optional with the jury to decide
the same. This is the view taken by
some Of our local manufacturers, both
as Offering a better protection to en-
ployers and at the same time assuring
ample safety for the employe. In
a jury would have the power to nix
tremendously heavy damages, even to
the extent Of compelling a defendant
industry to go through bankruptcy.
Col. Charles M. Jarvis, testifying at
the recent hearing, cited an instance
in which the Berlin Iron Bridge COM
pany was concerned, when, through
discharged for drunkenness, five en-
pl6yes were killed. Col. Jarvis claim
ed that if the death limit at that time
had been $20,0 900 1t might have result
ed in bankrupting the company.
Yet there are sound business con-
siderations upon which the manufac-
turers base this unexpected show OF
appeal courts to review the question
of excessive damages where the jury
has the right to give an unlimited
amount is much more secure than
when the amount that the jury can
give is fixed by definite limit. The
manufacturers. of course, would
much prefer to reserve this right to
appeal against excessive damages in
all it's force and effectiveness than see
the damage limit in death cases rails.
ed to almost any arbitrary sum. And
we are inclined to agree with them
that justice to all parties concerned
is the more nearly appropriated when
the jury can without limit assess as
damages what it believes to be fair
and reasonable, subject to review
by a court that will measure the
amount allowed by those strict and
exact standards that give due consid-
GRAFTON ito mortality tables and the
probable earning capacity Of the bread
winner.
If juries are to be allowed to assess
damages in death cases. The Union
is opposed to limiting their judgment
by imposing upon them a maximum
amount beyond which they cannot go.
The jury is quite as apt to do an in
justice to the employers Or the en-
ployes within the limits imposed as
they are, If no arbitrary limit is fix
ed.
Juries moreover, are not as well
qualified to apply Northampton tables
and other scientific tests to damages
in death cases as the trained and ex-
perienced judges of an appeal court.
Therefore, we conclude that the jury
should be allowed to fix as damages
what it, in it's good Judgment as a
body of, commonsense men, thinks is
fair and reasonable, being guided in
this conclusion by such instructions
as the trial judge should see fit to give
them in his charge, and that after
they have arrived at a verdict that
their decision be freely open to re-
view by an appellate tribunal both on
the ground of excessiveness or mad
equacy by either or both of the parties
interested in the suit.