The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1911-01-14
THE LAW AND THE
 INJURED MAN How Employers Liability Works Out Anticipated Defences Dating Back to Early Customs = Odds Which Favor Employer.
(Exclusive Service The Survey Press
 Bureau.)

(Exclusive Service The Survey Press
 Bureau.)
 A great problem of our industrial system is how to compensate work men fairly for accidents received while serving their employers. Since the United States Supreme Court de- clared the Federal Employers Liabil- ity Act of 1906 unconstitutional, the states have the responsibility for pro- viding adequate protection to most of the vast army of the employed.
 To understand why legislation is needed we must know something of the general law of negligence in per- sonal injury cases. If person in- jures another accidentally through carelessness, he is civilly liable for the harm, reckoned in money, which his heedlessness caused. It is only fair that one who is unduly careless should make all possible amends. If the injured was also negligent he can not recover. A master is responsible for the negligence of his servant while engaged in work for him. But if the person injured is an employe of the same master there are important notifications of the rules of liability. The law says a change is made by the contract of. hire in the >elations that would otherwise exist. It>::S mistak- enly assumed that the two parSt~s~ are equal, that the servant is free to ..->e or leave the work as he likes. If he accepts the place he makes an i'm piled contract in which he legally as- sumes certain risks.
 An employee must run the risk of all ordinary dangers in his calling. against mishaps. In many trades ac- cidents, humanly speaking, are in evitable. It is more precarious to quarry granite, run logs or make steel rails than it is to practice law or drive a hay rake. If a man does one instead of the other, it is his own lookout. The law further assumes that in especially dangerous occupa- tions the extra exposure is recom- pensed by large wages. The worker has no redress, not merely for acci- dents which happen despite every care but for those which occur from meth ods common to the business even if there are improved devices that would prevent them. handle on a bucket holding two tons of iron pulls out, killing laborer. The handle was merely clamped on instead of being forged on as they are in the newer buckets. But since the old and less safe type is still in common use the plaintiff had no redress. The danger
 
 ordinary risk of the employment
 Besides ordinary exposure an em- ployee assumes all extraordinary risks, such as those from defective machinery, if he knew or should have known of the danger and continued working. For instance, a seventeen year-old girl in a laundry called att tention to a loose board in front of the rolls but did not stop working. Fin ally; while cleaning the machine, this board flew up and thrust her hands into the machine where they were crushed. She was not allowed to re- cover damages because she had gone on working when she ought to have known it was dangerous to do so.
 Finally an employee assumes the risk of all dangers from careless, in efficient. Or ignorant co-workers. As between master and servant the for mer must merely use reasonable care in hiring assistants of ordinary skill and carefulness. Perhaps a yard master places a car of dynamite at the end of a train instead of in the