Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1911-03-31

no opportunity to study his Bill and III
gest il and do not know its exact bear
ing on the existing law regulating reia-
lions between employer ana employee. You
will see by IA casual examination Of it that
il makes some drastic changes in the law.
I see that it eliminates the doctrine of con-
tribu,ory negligence, the doctrine of as
sumption of risks. OF fellow servant, and |
see that the limit of $4,000 which prevails
under statutes of the State is removed, so
that as understand it there would be no
limit to the amount recoverable by the
representatives of an employee in the case
of an accident happening under the pur-
view of this law, whereas there would be
limit in some other eases where an acct
dent happens and the employer and EN-
pIoyee are not concerned. There are sew
era things which appear TO me 10 make it
necessary that this Bill should receive fur
Their consideration.
am one of those who believe that we
should do something and we should stead
lily progress In our theory of legislation in
rela ton 10 the employee, because | be-
lieve that the progress of civilization has
CARDS TO employer and employee that it
has been in IA sense lett behind. believe
our laws should be gradually changed so
that The Iaborcrs. that is the employee, will
have different and changed rights in re-
garas to this matter Of personal liability
for personal injurie5. ] think gradually
we tEould cnange it around 50 that more
liability PESTS. upon the employer. | think
possibly eventually this thinS may be all
worked out in connection WIN working
mans insurance law, that while the
burden may be in sense shifted Ii will
not be found to rest too heavily upon any
one spot. Two years ago the Legislature
passed an employers liability law which
was based largely upon the Massachusetts
statute. 1t took effect of course only Il
year and half ago So far as it has
conc TO my observation the law has
worcd well, but we have not had an OPP
portuniy to fully understand the operation
of it. II was q law which was much de-
sired by the representatives OF the labor
union at thar time and was passed in de-
ference | think 10 their earnest desire that
something along these lines should be done
We nave had scarcely time TO work that
cut and TO know what the result OF that is
going to be.
1t seems to me it would he very had
policy To adopt another law within
TWO years and change that ali over
Ny theory is that we should make these
changes very gradually. believe TO
make sudden and drastic change like
this would affect business and would
AFFECT capital | am as ready as any
AT the DrOppr ~ ,ala ,1a,4
in any legislation any reasonable leg.
islation in behalf of the employee, and
| should be glad to do so. but j thin.
ii would be Unwise for us now and
he u To pass such Il drastic law as this;
appears To be without and further con
sheraton. And therefore think and
] urge that the report of the majority
Of the committee that the matter b.,
refsrred II the next Legislature 50 as
to keep the case in court as it We're
ard SO that the propositions and these
theories may he considered carefully,
may prevail
AR PATTANGALI. of Waterville: .ar
Sp aaller. just Il word in regard to TIE
minority report which was signed by
two members of the committee The
bill that was presented to the commit
tee was one which had come into the
Legislature, or rather it was copy of
that bill. In 1903 the Legislature en-
acted an Employers Liability law on
a rather different line than this one
When this bill was presented before
the committee it was urged by an at
torHey in Augusta, Mr. Maher. MI
Heath also presented an argument not
exactly in opposition to the bill but
in opposition to some features of it,
The first report of the committee that
was agreed upon was to refer the mat
ter to the next Legislature, because
there were some legal questions in re-
gard to the bill which were difficult,
and which presented some problems that
We could hardly seem to adjust. Be
fore that committee report had been
filed the attorney who presented the
bill suggested to some of the commit
tee that if the bill could be taken
back into the committee he would make
some changes himself so that perhaps
the bill US changed might recommend
itself to his. The bill was taken back
for that purpose and modified into the
draft. which is now before .l,e House.
AS modified. this bill applies only to-
corporations and companies so that the
individual employer of labor would not
be affected by it. l speak of that be-
cause one gentleman in the House had
raised that point in conversation. 1t
involves 4 considerable change in our
present law. l do not understand that
the bill does away with the defense OF
cc1tributory negligence but ii would
do away if enacted into law with the
fellow servant doctrine and with what
is known as the assumption of risk
doctrine The fellow servant doctrine
WAS pretty largely modified by the law
of two years ago by which anyone who
had control Of men, possibly the fore
man of a crew of anything like that,
was not cons idered a fellow servant
but WAS considered a vice principal,
acting in the place of his employer.
This law goes further than that and
removes from the defenceS that are
given to the employer the fellow ser
want defense altogether end also as
| .ead it, the assumption Of risk de-
Tense.
Now, Mr.. Speaker, this is a matter
Mich is worthy of the attention of the