Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1911-01-16

belief that as a practical question COM
p~ensation to an injured employee
should be placed on the fact of the ac-
cident or injury. and not IN the ques-
ton of fault or negligence. In the
elective section of our proposed bill we,
therefore, eliminate entirely the ques-
ton Of c~ontributory negligence.
LAS TO the second and third of these
defenses, |. e., assumption of risk and
fellow servants we believe that, how
ever just these may have been at the
time of their adoption, they are unjust
as applied to modern conditions OF en-
ployment."
Enp1oyee Has No Voice In Matter.
The commission takes this stand on
the assumption of risk, it says, for the
aso that while theoretically a work.
mar may be presumed to have a choice
in the selection of his employment as
a matter of fact In the vast majority
Of cases the choice is narrowed down
to the acceptance of such risk or no
work. On the question of fellow
servant, the commission maintains that
in the great majority of cases the en-
ployee has no voice in the selection of
his fellow servants, and the mere fact
of having the same employer should
not in itself release the employer from
a liability which he would otherwise
incur.
AbrOgatiOn of Defenses Urged.
Based on these conclusions, the COM
mission declares that 1t believes the
time has come in the development Of
our civic life for the abrogation of
these W defenses, and for that reason
such a recommendation is incorporated
in the proposed bills.
The report outlines the extensive
work done In the investigation. Public
hearings were held in Newark, Jersey
City. Paterson and Camden, at which
employers and labor representatives
presented their views. The president
and secretary of the commission also
participated in a conference of COM
missioners or compensation for indus
trial accidents from ten States held in
Chicago asst November Letters were
sent to prominent lawyers and leading
judges of the States asking their
opinion on various questions relating
to the employers liability.
The commission states that, while it
Is unable to recommend the passage Of
a compulsory compensation act, it
recommends the elective act which Is
included in the bill which was given
in the newspapers last week. This Is
lone with the expectation that such an
elective act will be generally accepted
by both employers and employees for
the following reasons:
BY the employers
First-Because his liability is limited,
and he Is thus relieved of the danger
of harassing lawsuits for excessive
damages.
Secondly reason OF the abrogation
OF the d%efenses OF assumption OF risk
and fellow servant" the position of the
employer who refuses to accept the
elective law will be less tenable.
Third-Because he can in q large
measure add the expense to the cost of
manufacture and recover 1t In his SELL
ing price.
Fourth-Because he can readily in
sure his liability.
BY the employee:
First-The practical certainty of set
Element In accordance with the
schedule as against the uncertainty of
an appeal to common law rights.
Second-Promptness in settlement,
as against the laws delay
Third-All of the money is paid to
the injured person or his dependents,
as against the heavy attorney fees and
court expenses of the suit at law.
Makeup of Commission.
The commission was appointed by
Fort, pursuant to a Senate
resolution passed last year. and is COM
posed Of William B.. Dickson, Of Mont
clair; J.. William Clark, of Newark;
John T.. Cossrove. Of Elizabeth;
Samuel Botterill, Of East Orange;
Colonel Walter e. Edge. Of Atlantic
City, and e. X. Mills, of Morristown.
Commissioners Cosgrove and Botteriil
concurred in the report and approved
the bill recommended, with the excep-
ton of the maximum compensation
provided by the elective compensation
feature In case of death, which they
say in q minority statement they be-
should be extended to equal the
compensation provided for total dis
ability, that is, a maximum of $40 per
during 400 weeks, or 81, 900.