The Birmingham age-herald., 1911-06-18
The Workers Compensation Act
By Ethel Arme Author Ivory

lo.% to the dark ages, when it comes
 to tAss, sort of thing"
 l The NSropean system of employer s ] liability hes been misunderstood in this
 country to an astonishing degree. A | paper on the aworkmen's side of the | question, has been recently written by | P. Tecumseh Sherman, former commis-
 sioner of labor of New York state, in which he makes a comparison between | the principle upon which the European system is based, and the corresponding principles of the American law
 General and Local Application | It is an exposition of the common law
 of the Uited States which comprehends the Alabama code as well and Is as follows:
 Injuries to employees in industry are
 due principally to the following causes: | 0) Negligence or fault of employer | CD Negligence or fault of empoye in- | jured. (3) Neglicence or fault of a fellow servant. (4 Trade risks Ac- | cording to the common law (which, | with many minor qualifications by stat
 ute, prevails generally throughout the United States) an injured employe is entitled to relief from his employer only for injuries due to the first of | these four causes, i. e., the fault of the employer-in which case Subject to certain conditions) he is entitled to full
 money damages sufficient to repay him his financial losses and to so1ace him for his sufferings. For injuries from | accidents due to the three other causes | injured employees are entitled to. no
 relief from their employers.
 Hard on the EmplOye
 "This latter rule Is just so far as it applies to accidents due to the fault
 of the injured employees themselves;
 but as to accidents due to the fault of fellow servants or to trade risks it is l unbearably hard; for accidents due to these latter causes constitute the bulk of accidents in our modern organized hazardous industries.
 "A well kown Austrian experience ta- | ble attributes 70 per cent of accidents | in factories to trade risks alone The | German figures are classified accord | ing to .'preventability, but, when an | alyzed, indicate only a slightly lower
 proportion of injuries to be due to | trade risks. We have no adequate
 statistics In America. but my studies as | Commissioner of Labor of this state,
 based upon information and advice re-
 ceived from the factory inspectors
 lead me to. about the same conclusion 1 as to our factory accidents. Railroad | experience shows a high proportion | of injuries In transportation to be due to faults of fellow servants.
 No Moral Fault of Employers "rhe general conclusion, therefore. is that the large majority of injuries arc due to trade risks and to faults of fellow
 servants, and to no moral fault of the
 employers or of tho employees injured.
 Adding the proportion due to faults of
 employers (which is difficult to estlmatel,
 the proportion due to no moral fault of
 the employees injured becomes oyerwhelm-
 ing-it is variously guessed at between 70
 per cent and S7 per cent A rough esti-
 mate also indicates that over 20 per cent of the victims of serious accidents in
 industry are grown men: and presumably
 a large proportion of them are heads of families. Only a small proportion of them are insured and only an insignif- cant proportion. are adequately insured;
 and In fact very few are able to insure themselves
 Taking any reasonable estimate of the
 numbers killed and disabled in our haz-
 ardous industries and the smallest calcu- lation of the proportion of accidents due
 to caupses other than the faults Of the
 employers, the number of persons who
 would be annually reduced to Restitution by accidents in our industries, If the the ory of our law were really carried out in it's administration, will appear enor-
 nous. But the theory of our law is not carried ous in practice. We, therefore,
 find distinct theoretical and practical ob-
 jectlons to it. the more vital of which
 are as follows:
 A "Why?"
 "1 The exemption of the employer from all liability to an injured employe, where
 the accident is due to the fault of a fel- low servant, is an exception to the gem erat law of agency. If my servant negli-
 gently injures a stranger ! am liable; but