The Greenville journal. [volume] (Greenville, Ohio) 1850-1918, 1913-06-26
Nc. ST..

only purpose of this is to make It I'm.
possible for the employer to exercise
the option which the Green act pre-
tends to give him.
AS further penalty for attempting
to exercise this option the employer
may be required to give a bond to the
state. 1t may be cash or collateral,
even. and no man knows what the
amount will be.
The Green act further subjects the
employer 20 damage suits by injured
employees, even though he has pro-
vided compensation for them. and
against the possible ruinous losses
which these damage suits may entail,
he is denied the right to protect him
self by insuring. Any employe in
jured, or the dependents of an en-
p'oye killed, may refuse to accep'
compensation and bring suit for
larger damages if the accident occur
red as the result of failure to comply
with legal requirement On the part
1f the employer or his officer or
Cgent An employer thus sued can
plead only two defenses cOntribu-
tory negligence and fellow servant.
Consider this illustration:
A contractor putting up a sky
scraper, complies with the legal re.
quirement that rlanks shall be laid
on each floor. The contractors officer
or agent moves a PLANK. Another EN-
ploye, carrying keg of bolts. steps
where the plank is missing. He falls
l3 stories to death. The dependents
of this unfortunate refuse to accept
the maximum death benefit Of $3.50
provided by this Green act. They
sue for $4,000 damages.
Can the contractor plead the de.
fense of fellow servant Perhaps.
Can he plead the defense of contrib
utory negligence? Perhaps. But
down in the cellar there were a dozen
laborers sorting bricks or mixing con-
crete. The falling workman and the
keg of bolts came hurtling down upon
them from l3 stories above. Every
man of the group was MANNED or kill
ed. The injured and the dependents
of the killed refuse to accept the COM
pensation; they brought suits for
damages approXimating 100000.
Could the contractor plead fellow ser
want? Hardly, Could he plead con-
tributory negligence? Certainly not.
Perhaps he paid the judgment and
went broke. Perhaps he was judg.
ment-proof and didn't pay a cent. In
that event the injured and the de-
pendents of the killed lost out COM
pletely, for when they elected to sue
they lost forever their right to re-
ceive compensation.
That's the Green act. That's the
open liability it places on employers
and against which it denies them the
right to insure.
Such big employers as would find
1t economy to pay the penalty for the
right to stay out and carry their own
insurance WILL sooner or later, be or
dered to insure in the state fund.
What board Of tax-spenders would
voluntarily pass up such juicy plums?
Promises have been made to GER
tain employers by members of the
present liability board of awards that,
under the Green act, the board viii!
recognize care on the part of an en-
ployer by giving him premium rate
lower than that paid by other employ
ers in his same class of occupation.
This is a promise political and futile.
The industrial commission will be
changed every two years, or four
years, at most. Further under the
language of the Green act, premium
rates shall be assessed equally and
uniformly on all employers within the
same class If the industrial commits
sion should attempt to discriminate
it would promptly be enioined
1t is the Green act and not the
promises of politicians which employ
ers and employees must consider.