The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1912-12-13

so In an action against a railroad by an enaploye to recover for personal in Juries all the plaintiff has to prove is that the company was negligent. In spite of the change in the law which places 8 defending corporation at great dtsadvan age in a common law to take the risk of suits at common law, but the railroads cons tit1te about the only type of enterprise that has not secured insurance under the terms of the act.
 Constantly the accident board is re- ce1v1nS appeals for rulings on unusual l questions. many of them concerned with occupational diseases. A watch maker claimed the right to compen- aation because while at work he was obliged to lean his elbow and as which was manifest in the wasting of one hand. He was awarded com pensation for medical attendance and also was compens sated for the differ ence between the amount he could 1 earn after his injury and what he re- ceived before. In cases where the man Is reduced he is given compen- satton of half the difference between what he earned before the injury and
 what he draws from later occupa- tton.
 | Compensation for injury was recent 1 ly awarded by the board to a speeder tender in a mill, who claimed that l she contracted swollen knees by the movement of shutting the power on and off, the motion consisting of push
 ing lever back and releasing it with the side of the knee joint. The board decided that this was occupational | disease. man working in a varnish 1 factory was required to handle wood l alcohol and periodically he had to sus- pend work account of swollen 1 hands. He asked for compensation | for the loss of earning power and the accident board ruled that his claim
 was proper. But as the empIoye feared
 his condition might become chronic he changed his occupation after his con- valescence.
 PREVENTING MUCH LITIGATION. The fact that an employe is injured l while neglecting to a guard or other protecting device does not pr1e- clude recovery of compensation, in the has found that neglect to use guards has not been wiHu1 misconduct. In some instances compensation was awarded to injured employees who fail ed to use the guards provided, when 1t was shown that the guards did not offer a full measure of protection. and
 also o,4I interfsred with the proper proper 1 and
 Each case of this character has been
 investigated by the commission and
 decided on it's merits, irrespective of
 Scores of eases have been adjusted
 by the members of the board without
 arbitration even. merely by bringins
 the parties together. The board has
 prevented a great deal of litigation by
 securing equitable settlements. The commission has been singularly suc-
 cessful in adjusting claims arising from injuries which unfit men for fur
 ther participation in the occupation } in which they were engaged when in Icapacitated. There have been numer. ous instances of men who earned $1t a week at the time of the injury ah6 i who on recovery could not earn more l than SIP or $15 a week. The law pro-
 vides that in such cases the injured
 ernploye shall be compensated to thf
 extent of half the difference betweer
 what he received before and what he could earn after his injury. Injured employees who did not understand thai have been helped by the commission to secure their rights, and good feel . ing between the employees and the en- pIoyers has been promoted.