EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY 



202S 



EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY 



personal relations between master and work- 

 man, there arose a feeling that the common 

 law was too harsh. The first statute intended 

 to extend the employer's liability was an act 

 of the British Parliament in 1880. This law 

 exempted workmen from the common law 

 priciples when injury was caused by defec- 

 tive machinery, and also made the employer 

 liable if the fault lay with the foreman or 

 superintendent to whom the employee was 

 directly responsible. Later laws, in England 

 and other countries, greatly extended the em- 

 ployer's liability. In the United States about 

 twenty of the states passed similar laws and 

 the Federal government by statute recognized 

 its liability towards several large groups of 

 its employees. 



The burden of proof, under an employer's 

 liability law, lies with the injured workman. 

 Only a small proportion of injured employees 

 are financially able to force an employer, by 

 law, to make some compensation, and even 

 in many of these cases the amount received 

 is far below the lost earning power. After 

 such liability laws had been in force for some 

 time, employers began to take a new kind of 

 insurance, known as employers' liability insur- 

 ance, by which the employer is protected 

 against loss; the insurance company agrees to 

 assume the liability if an accident occurs, and 

 to pay the damages. This insurance generally 

 made it more difficult for the workman to col- 

 lect damages, for the insurance company al- 

 most invariably contested the claim. 



Workmen's Compensation. The many diffi- 

 culties which stood between the injured work- 

 man and a just compensation gradually led 

 to a new viewpoint, which is indicated by the 

 term workmen's compensation. Under the old 

 laws the employer was liable for damages, 

 but under the new plan the injury brings its 

 compensation as a matter of course. Great 

 Britain, Germany, France, Austria-Hungary 

 and nearly all other European nations now 

 have laws providing for compulsory insur- 

 ance against industrial accidents. Most of the 

 British colonies have acts modeled on that 

 of Great Britain of 1897, which makes the em- 

 ployer liable for injuries in certain hazardous 

 occupations, whether or not he is at fault. A 

 British law of 1906 removes this restriction 

 and makes compensation practically a univer- 

 sal obligation on employers. 



In Canada.' In the Canadian provinces the 

 subject of workmen's compensation has been 

 handled by the provincial governments. The 



provincial laws differ widely in principle and 

 in details. The Ontario law, which was fol- 

 lowed as a model by Nova Scotia and British 

 Columbia, was framed by Sir William Mere- 

 dith, was passed by the provincial legislature 

 in May, 1914, and went into effect on January 

 1, 1915. This law, like others of its type, 

 recognizes that the misfortune of a crippled 

 workman or the needs of his widow or chil- 

 dren are not any less because he was at fault 

 or someone else was not at fault, and it pro- 

 vides compensation regardless of the possible 

 negligence on the part of anyone concerned. 

 The law does not apply to all employments, 

 but includes manufacturing, building, lumber- 

 ing, mining, transportation, navigation and a 

 variety of more or less hazardous occupa- 

 tions. These industries are divided into two 

 classes. In the first, the employer pays an 

 annual assessment to an accident fund out of 

 ' which workmen are given compensation, but 

 the employer is not individually liable for 

 damages. In the second class, no accident 

 fund is collected, but employers are person- 

 ally liable for damages. The amount of com- 

 pensation varies with the degree of injury, 

 but in no case exceeds $2,000 or fifty-five per 

 cent of the workman's average wage. 



Of the other provinces of Canada, Mani- 

 toba has compulsory insurance in casualty in- 

 surance companies, with a provision, however, 

 allowing certain firms to carry their own in- 

 surance. The scale and conditions of com- 

 pensation are almost identical with those in 

 Ontario. The Saskatchewan Act, which has 

 been in force since 1911, limits the compensa- 

 tion to $2,000, regardless of the negligence or 

 responsibility of any person concerned, and 

 the injured workmen may bring suit in a 

 court of law if the employer fails to pay at 

 once. The Saskatchewan law does not apply 

 to agriculture, nor to any work performed on 

 or about a farm. 



In the United States. In the states of the 

 Union there is even greater variety of laws 

 on the subject. About thirty of the states 

 have statutes, ranging from a slight extension 

 of the common law liability to compulsory 

 compensation. The more advanced legisla- 

 tion is represented by the laws of Connecti- 

 cut, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon and 

 Texas. The compensation laws make payment 

 compulsory in Colorado, Ohio and Washing- 

 ton, and in most other states the injured 

 workman has the option of making a claim 

 under the law. In Nevada, Oregon, Washing- 



