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

workman. No man ever bargains or.
consents that he will assume the
hazard Of risk In a given employment.
A man works because of an economic
need, and this Assumption Of risk
Is nothing more than a fiction OF the
courts which puts q burden upon
the labor engaged in q given indus
try, and thereby subsidies the indus
try. The burden Of the loss Of earn
ing capacity due to accidents which
are covered under the doctrine Of as
sumption Of risk Is placed upon the
labor engaged in the industry and not
upon that industry. This doctrine OF
the law assumes that an employe Is
reasonably presumed to foresee that
he will be exposed to the risks Of the
business, and, as stated by Judge
Lowe, his compensation is fixed at
such an amount as would indemnify
him for the hazards of the employ
ment, and that he has therefore an
ticipated the consequences OF risks
OF this character.
Faulty and Unsound.
IL - pLSOoOAy Ou0 " LAo WIOu66 VI
this principle OF the common law
more than any other that the clamor
for a workmen's compensation act
arose. This principle of the "as-
sumption Of risk" was probably more
faulty, unsouno and unfair to labor
than either Of the other two defenses.
The third defense is what Is term
ed "~contributory negligence" This
from the words you will readily OBJ
serve is closely allied to the principle
Of assumption Of risk. II an employe
who is injured has failed to use reas-
enable are and this negligence has
contributed to the injury, he Ia pre-
Guided from recovery. The burden is
placed on the employe in an action
for compensation for injuries to prove
not only the negligence OF the en-
ployer, but that he himself was free
from negligence contributing to the
injury.
Throughout the country as indus
tries increased, Is factories grew in
size and as commercial enterprises
~broadened into larger fields of activity,
there vas a constant increase in liti-
cation arising out Of personal injuries
received in factories, mines and rail-
way employment. Those who employ.
ed labor were constantly relying on
the fellow servant" rule, or the
doctrine of Resumption of risk" or
"contributory negligence" and these
were being extended by the refine
ments Of close decisions OF technical
courts; causes were being reversed on
technical grounds, and the courts were
being clogged with this form Of It'll
cation. That which was paid at the
end Of the litigation was used I'D in
attorneys fees and costs for prepara-
ton Of the suit, so that It was estf.
mated that less than twenty per cent
OF the amount which employers paid
in the form of judgments in personal
injury cases was received by those
who sustained the injuries.
Employer Burden Light.
The result Of this tendency in ju.
dic1al decisions was to cause people to
come to the conclusion that manufact.
uring and mercantile industries were
not bearing their proportionate share
OF the burdens imposed upon the pub.
lie and the dependents OF those MAIN.
ed In industrial pursuits. If a piece Of
machinery were broken through an
accident, that was a charge on the in
dustry or business, but If a work
man lost his life, an arm, an eye or
was in other ways physically disabled,
it was not a charge on the industry,
unless the workman had complied
with the conditions of the common
law, known as the assumption OF risk,
the fellow servant doctrine, etc. ri
he came within the provisions Of the
law with all of these technical, legal