The Hartford republican. (Hartford, Ky.) 18??-1926, 1914-12-18
COMPENSATION
ACT IS invalid
Court of Appeals Declaresit
Unconstitutional.
Dissenting Opinions Filed By
Judges Miller. Hobson
4 and Lassing.

tsdnkfort, KY, Dec. l2.-The
worKmen's compensation act was
held unconstitutional by the Court
of Appeals yesterday morning. Judge
Miller wrote a dissenting opinion. in
which Chief Justice Hobson and
Judge Lassing Joined.
The majority opinion delivered by
Special Judge Dorsey, held that, by
restricting the employees grounds for
recovery and the employers defenses.
IL they do not join the fund, they are
practically coerced into the contract,
thus violating section 81 of the Con-
stitution. but states the belief that
the Legislature can enact such a
law that will be valid.
The majority opinion says in
part:
THE compensation of the injured
man in limited to the amount speci
fed in the schedule OF the act. This
amount OF his recovery under section
81 OF the constitutional.
I'VE think it is within the power
and right of an employe to waive this
limit or recover for injury by con-
tract il such contract is freely and
voluntarily made. There may new
or have been a word or a syllable be-
tween the employer and employee in
tegard to a contract for employment
OF labor, yet the act provides that
such contract shall be conclusively
presumed to have been made between
the employer and employe If the
emp.oye continues to work for the
Employer after the employer has
posted notices in some conspicuous
places about his place OF business to
the effect that he has paid his prem
ium INTO tn efund and accepted the
povisions of the act
~, after this notice has been
served. the employe should be injur-
ed o. killed while in the service OF
the employer. and he. or his personal
repi sentative. sues his employer to
recover damages, his right to recov-
er is barred by this act, II his injury
was caused by or contributed to by
the negligence OF any other employee
OF said employer. or II the injudy
was due to any of the ordinary haz-
ards or risks of the employment or
IL due to any defects in the machin-
cry II the defect was known 10 or
could have been discovered by the
injuded employe by the exercise OF
ordinary care. nor in any event il the
negligence of the emplOye contribut-
ed to such injuries.
shown TO BE Compulsory.
when an injured employe elects
No decline the compensatino given
him by this board. why should he
be denied these causes OF action?
Why penalized in this way?
"To this there is but one answer:
ut was the purpose and intent
of this act to compel an employe to
ACCEPT It's provisions.
"When his right to recover is re-
stricted by such qualifications and
conditions as these we think the
qualifications and conditions consti-
tute, within the meaning OF section
50 of the Constitution, not only
limitation upon the amount to be re-
covered but practically destroys his
right to recovery.
"When the employer accepts the
provisions of this act. the employe is
automatically drawn into this So
called contract and made subject to
its provisions under pain OF being de-
prived of all his causes of action. II
cannot be then said that he has vol
unfairly elected to accept the pro-
visions of the contract"
Dissenting Opinion.
Judge Miller in his dissenting
opinion, said:
Kentucky is the first State to
hold such an act as this unconstitu-
tional.
II is urged that the act is compul-
sony in that. in effect. II compels the
employer and employe to accept its
provisions under penalty of losing
their rights under section 81 of the
Constitution. which provides that
TIM General Assembly shall have no
power to limit the amount to be re-