The Celina Democrat. (Celina, O. [Ohio]) 1895-1921, 1912-09-06

AAN 'Rshf
A. No; by merely filing his claim
for compensation or award all right
to sue is lost,
Q. Can the injured employe main
tain an action against his employer
In other cases except whore he suf'
fers from the wllml act of his EN-
ployer or from the violation Of lawC
or ordinances9
A. No; he can not
q. Can not Cas employer purchase
insurance outside the state plan which
will give him protection against the
result of his wilful act OF the result
of his violating laws or ordinances?
A. No; he can not, for no insur-
ance company can lawfully contract
with him for protection In such cases.
The attorney general OF Ohio says, In
carefully prepared opinion, which is
an exhaustive discussion of protection
20 employers afforded by the COM
pensation law:
81 have no doubt whatever in reach
ing the conclusion t1at an insurance
company can not lawfully contract, In
this state, to indemnify an employer
from the result of injuries occasioned
by his wilful act or from his failure
TO observe the laws OF the state OF
Ohio for the protection of the life OF
employees. Therefore, ] am
clearly OF the opinion that there is no
authority in the statutes of Ohio to
issue an insurance indemnifying an
employer or anyone else, against the
consequences arising from an injury
Occasioned by his wilful act;
or for loss or damage resulting from
violation of penal statutes"
O. Against what loss can an en-
ployer indemnify himself by contract
ing with an insurance company?
A. Insurance companies have au'
thority from the laws of Ohio to make
insurance to indemnify employers
against loss arising from mere acci-
dents only.
Q. Does the state plan, therefore,
afford more protection than any other
plan?
A. Most assuredly it dses in every
respect.
Q. Could the compensation law be
drawn to afford more protection to
the employer than it does?
A. No; it could not be so drawn
under the present constitution of Ohio;
for it now affords as full and COM
plete protection as the constitution
itself will allow.
O. Does an employer who contrib
utes to the state insurance fund need
to purchase additional liability insur-
ance?
A. No.
@. Why, then, so much talk about
protection?
A. The enemies Of the compensa-
tion plan who for selfish reasons want
to see the purposes Of this great stat
ute fail, have attempted to make a
bugaboo to frighten employers.
@. What is meant by "wilful act?"
A. Wilful act means intentional
act.
@. Can negligence be so gross as
to amount to wilful act?
A. No.
@. How about the employer who
does not accept the state plan?
A. He is liable to his employees for |
damages for injuries caused by his |
acts, neglect or default and
or loss arising from the wilful act |
If such employer or any OF such |
employers officers or agents, or
rom the failure of such employer,
,r any Of such employers officers or
Igents, to comply with any municipal
ordinance or lawful order Of any duly
officer, or any statute for
he protection of the life or safety of
employees.
Q. If the employer who has not
ccepted the state plan be sued by his
INJURED employe, is he affected in his
licenses by the compensation law?
A. Yes; if so sued he can not avail
Iimself of the following common law
licenses: the defense Of the fellow
ervant rule, the defense Of the as
umption of risk, or the defense OF
negligence.
@. What is the meaning of the
AVIS taking away from the employer
Tho is not under the state plan his
ommon law defenses?
A. The meaning is this That II
e is sued by his injured employe it
yould seem that his only defenses,
side from absence Of wrongful act,
eglect or default, are either (a) that
is employe was not injured at all, or,
By that his employe injured himself.
@. What, then, is the great funda'
lental difference between the old
liability insurance plan
nd the new state insurance plan?
A. The great fundamental differ
nee is that under the old plan the
'ss for injuries sustained from indus
ial accidents had to be borne by the
Ijured man and his family; whereas,
nder the state plan, the loss is COM
ensated out of the state insurance
md.
@. What we're the causes that
rote the compensation law?
A. l. Public sentiment which had
own dissatisfied over the unrelieved
stress arising out of Industrial acci-
ents
2. Employees who have felt most
eenly the distress have desired such
law.
3. Employers who have paid out
oney for protection have been dis
.tisfied because it did not reach the
jured as it should
@. How has society come to look