The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1911-07-18
(New Haven Union.)


 More important by far than the much mooted issue of public utilities legislation, because it is much more far-reaching and direct in it's prob able results, is the issue of employers liability and workmen's compensation now pending in the General Assem- bly, At best the public utility leg islation that has been passed will eff feet directly a comparatively few em- ployes and patrons of a comparative ly very few large corporations. On the other hand, employers liability and workmen's compensation legisla- tion is going to effect with far more directness every man, woman and child employed in factory, store, of flee or field. It is an issue that ev- cry citizen should consider carefully because it is an issue that effects di- rectly each and every one of us.
 Doctrine of Assumed Risk.
 The big issue involved in the fight in our Legislature over this measure concerns itself with the so-called com mon law rule known as the doctrine Of assumed risk" Under this rule of law, as laid down for hundreds of years, an employe who accepts a job dent to his occupation. If he loses an arm, a leg or an eye, through no fault or his own or of his employer, he must stand the loss.
 If he is, for example, structural iron worker and slips off an iron gir- der when high in the air and is kill ed by the resulting fall, his family must stand the loss, because that is 'one of the ordinary risks of his em- pioyment which he, by legal implica- tions, has assumed.
 Law and the Man.
 As. we said before, the doctrine of assumed risk is almost as old as the common law. The law, however, ought to be mans servant, not his master. Legal rules ought to be changed to meet new conditions, and must be if justice is to be done in society. old legal doctrines nave beeen changed quite often to preserve essential justice in human affairs. The whole system of equity Jurisprudence, in fact, is merely a modification of common law rules to meet new con- ditions and make sure tn.s essential justice prevails. lii snort man was not made for the law, but law was made for man.
 The Modern Idea.
 Without reviewing here at length the obvious changed industrial conditions in society that have demanded a change in the old common law the ory of the assumption of risks, It can be fairly said that the progres- sive and liberal modern position on this matter is that in all of a large class of accidents (amounang approx imately to one-half of the total num- Der of all industrial accidents) the burden of Joss should fall on the bus ness, not upon the employe or his family.
 In other words. if workman is hurt in the ordinary course of his occupation through no fault or care lessness on his own part the employ or Shn 9 a On is done, and shift this burden, as he certainly will, upon the consumer who buys his product In this way so- ciety will pay for a man injured in any employment those comparatively insignificant sums that are tackled to the price of all commodities.
 To-day every employer includes in the cost of his product sum that represents depreciation in his machin- cry and plant. If the gears are off a machine, society pays for it in the price of the commo dities that machine makes.
 Society's Duty.
 Now, why should not society bear the burden of an injury to the man who runs a machine as we'll as the injury to the machine itself? Why should not society bear the burden of lost arm. just as it bears the burden of a broken piston rod? Does the workman work for himself and his employer alone? Doesn't he do men who husband farm produce, who build houses and office buildings, railroads and steamboats, make clothes and furniture. clearly benefit society. Looked at broadly and lit erally, one cannot escape such a con- clusion. Then why is it not more equitable and just that the employer should assume the ordinary risks of