The daily Gate City. [volume] (Keokuk, Iowa) 1855-1916, 1914-08-28

" thlS artlcie, MT. - ~. 0oyos
who has made an exhaustive
study Of the new laws to gov
ern the relationship between
employer and empIoye, dis
cusses the features Of tho En-
ployers' Liability and Work
mems Compensation Acts and
points out their faIlinss. He
says they are contrary to public
policy and tells US why. II
you arc an employer or an en-
ploye read this article.
Several years ago the supreme
court Of the United States said: The
supreme court has not failed to rec
ognize the fact that the law is to a
certain extent a progressive science,
n gives instances of such progress
In recent years we are particularly
noting progressive changes In law
with reference to many subjects. In
this particular article 1t Is intended to
call attention to some Of the changes
with reference to an employers iiabil-
ity for personal injuries and the man
ner of compromising workmen there
fore.
Prior to the passage OF the work
mems compensation act, the liability
OF an employer for injuries received
by workmen may be briefly stated as
follows: The employe upon entering
employment implicitly agreed that he
would assume all the ordinary risks
incident to the employment, among
which was the negligence OF his fell
low employees, and, If the employe re-
ceived injuries which were not in
Guided in the risks tmpliedly assumed
by him and an injury was received
without negligence on his part, hen
he was entitled to compensation from
his employer.
Suitable Place to Work,
On the other hand the employer
impl1edly agreed that he would engage
competent fellow employees and that
he would take due are in the adoption
and use OF proper safeguards on all
machinery, apparatus, ETC., used in the
business, and that he would provide
a suitable n proper place In which
the employe might work, and for any
default on his part in the performance
of this part OF the contract, he would
be liable to the employe for compen-
sation in the event of injuries result.
ed therefrom.
Under this system II the employe is
without fault and a show negligence
on the part Of his employer, he will
ecover compensation.
The common law defenses which an
,.&- H. I~--1 al
for personal injuries are usually
grouped in three classes: (a) the fell
low servant doctrine, (b) assumption
of risk, and (c) c~ontributory negli-
gence.
The law originally held the employ.
er (who at that time was called the
MASTER responsible for the acts of all
his employees or servants, for the
reason that, as was said by the Ro-
man jurist, Ulpian, 1.-THE master should
have the selection Of servants at his
peril"
Respondent Superior.
1t would be interesting to follow
the early history Of the law OF per.
sonal responsibility, but We soon find
in the early history of the English law
the doctrine of respondent superior,
which means the liability or respons.
Utility of the employer or master for
the acts of his interiors or those
within his employment. This liability
of the master, as shown in the Eng
fish law, is based on the fact that the
inferior himself is unable to answer
in DAMAGES. and tnasmuch as the serv-
ants were in the masters employment
or household Gas was the case in the