Arizona republican., 1919-06-11
The Employers Liability Law

The opinion of the supreme court of the United States sustaining the validity of the employers Ia- bity law of this state will be of the greatest in crest everywhere There is, we believe no other law quite like it. no other that has gone quite in the direction of the protection of workmen. It was enacted by the first state legislature in pliance with constitutional mandate.
 1t was based on the theory that on an industry should rest the whole burden of loss by death injury of employees engaged in hazardous occupa- ions. It provides for recovery of damage under the common law rule but it wiped out the doctrines of contributory and fellow servants negligence and assumption of risk
 The first legislation this subject enacted England nearly forty years ago. in recognition of the changed conditions in industry It enlargement of common law liability. There was later more rigid English legislation ths subjct first applied only to railroad employmePr, but it came to be extended to all employment that is, all hazardous employment until at last the employer was made virtually the insurer of all persons in his employment and was required to pay lhaited compensation to all persons injured in his employ uent or to the families of those employees killed. X itiu later act was passed in England in 1905, and 
 and by am act of congress applying to persons en- -aged in interstate commerce. But legislation this subject in America is varied. that of Wisconsin Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey following loosely the English legislation.
 Al first some employers sought to evade the lia- bity imposed by requiring employees to sign con tract waiving the benefits of such legislation, but generally such contracts have been prohibited by legislation. The difference between the Arizona leg slaton and that of any other state is that here the employer is divesed of all defense and is left noth- ing do in court but to oppose extravagant claims for damages based on an exaggerauon of injuries
 The constitutionality of mider legislation than our own has been attacked the ground that when the employer was free from fault the law pro posed 10 take his property for other than public pur poses. without due process, and in violation of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution. It was on that ground that the Arizona law attacked in the cases decided Monday
 The New York court of appeals eight years ago, declared the workmen's compensation of that state void that ground. The decision widely criticized by the public the press and the bar and it furnished one of the principal grounds for the proposal of the progressive national platform of 1912 the recall of judicial decisions by popular vote The following year the constitution of New York was amended so as to permit this legislation. Five years ago the United States supreme court sustained the constitutionality of the Wisconsin law, which was substantially the same rejected by the New York court of appeals
 By the upholding of the Arizona law which is the last word in this sort of egs- ation an impetus will be given to the employers liability insurance business, which originated after the decision in the Wisconsin case, and which many employers found less expensive than fighting damage suits, even though Arizona employers might still have hoped for relief from the higher courts