Staunton spectator and vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1896-1916, 1911-04-14
LIABILITY LAW
IN ENGLAND IS
A GOOD THING
Workmen Can Take AID.
vantage of Many Clauses
To Get Damages.

~ wv AoA1AOSOos
LONDON-[Spl.]- - The English
employers liability law is undoubted-
ly a good thingH There is no getting
away from it.
An injured employe has only te
prove that he suffered his injury in
the course Of his regular employment
and he is entitled to damages from
his employer no matter how good Q
defense the latter may have.
All classes of labor = housemaids,
office boys, carpenters, coal miners
factory hands, clerks, railroad men.
everybody-is included
If the employee is injured he geta
compensation. II he il killed his
family gets it.
No questions of contributory negli-
gence on the employees part or Of re-
sponsibility by a co-employe are al
lowed to enter into the matter.
The employee is required to show
only two thingsEthat he was injured
and that the injury was incidental TO
the performance Of his duties as an
employee.
The result is that there isn't any
such lodging of responsibility among
English employers as there is among
American. Damage claims are paid
promptly, too.
To delay payment involves costs
as well as damages. The law is SO ex-
plicit and positive that there isn't
any getting around it. The govern
ment's policy is to rush cases brought
under it's provisions to trial as quick
ly as possible.
At most there cannot be more than
one appeal. The appeal follows hot
on the heels of the original trial. Re-
versals and retrials are so infrequent
as not to be worth taking into consid-
Grafton.
In short, the road is made SO
smooth for the recovery of damages
by an injured workman that it would
be hard to find one so poor as to be
unable to fight his case, in the event
of resistance by the employer.
And if the workman wins, which is
almost foregone conclusion, the
employer must not only pay all the
costs and his own lawyers fees but
all expenses to which the employe
has been put.
So there are almost no personal in
jury cases in the English courts.
Naturally this is a good thing for
the working classes.
Nor does it bear severely upon
employers, either. They simply in
sure their employees is done in
America, too-and when one of them
is injured the insurance company
compensates him.
There has been some complaint Of
late that, in the case of few cor
porations, an injured employe who
insists upon being compensated gets
his money, indeed, but is blacklisted,
so far as his particular trade is con-
cerned, when he gets well and starts
to look for job again. Even allow
ing for this drawback, however, the
law works exceilently.
But there certainly are some funny
claims made under it. Here are q
few recent ones which the insurance
companies have either already settled
or are Investigating:
Milkmaid, injured in eye by swish
of cows tail.
Housemaid, shocked into nervous
prostration by glimpse of big teddy
bear in dimly lighted room.
Footman, victim of sprained knee
through stamping on rat.
Housemail, frightened into collapse
by silent appearance Of. washerwom-
an as she was carrying scuttleful OF
coal from cellar.
Coachman, struck in face, while en-
route from stable to kitchen, by en-
ployer's slippers, thrown at yowling
cat.
Travelling man. suffering from
smashed nose due to collision with
lamp post.
Butler, scratched by rusty pin while
embracing housemaid.
All these claims are officially OF
record and anybody who doubts their
authenticity can verify them by doc
umentary evidence. The case of the
scratched butler is one Of the excep-
tons which the insurance company
intends to contest It maintains that
embracing the housemaid was no part
of his regular work.