MICHIGAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCE. 
151 
oblige 
coimnoii law defenses, known 
guilty of a broach of bis obligations, i nese 
under tlie familiar titles of “contributory negligence," assumption 01 
risk’’ and “fellow servant rules,” have been rendered less harsh and 
severe by many statutes pertaining to dangerous employments requiring 
the provision of safety devices by the employer, the neglect of which 
rendered the defenses of “assumption of risk” and “fellow servant” null, 
or at least materially modified. This type of legislation has been 
abundant in recent years. In Ohio, for instance, it was possible for a 
workman to recover through .the courts for every injury except those 
arising in the use of simple tools or due solely to his own personal 
negligence. These precautionary measures were meritorious but not 
adequate to the necessity of the situation. American experience with 
this remedy is coinciding with that of England and Germany in that 
two objectionable consequences thrust themselves upon the public. It 
lias multiplied the litigation in our courts through increased number 
of suits for damages, with all the attendant evils, and permits a large 
number— over fifty per cent — of cases where there is no neglect on the 
part of either party but due to industry, to go uncompensated. It is 
right here that the fundamental characteristic of the new' laws appears. 
It aims to compensate the workman in all cases , regardless of the blame 
or absence of blame, except such injuries as may be due to wilful neglect. 
There are certain fundamental features of these statutes which must 
be given attention in order that the matters provoking differences of 
opinion may be clearly established in our minds. 
1. Adoption of the Law. In the majority of cases — New' Jersey, 
Kansas, New Hampshire, California, Ohio and Wisconsin — it is optional 
with the employer and employe. The statute expressly provides that 
the employer may choose between the common law settlement, divested 
of common law principles, or compensation. In case the employer neg- 
lects or refuses to accept the law' ,tlien the common law holds good 
with the three common law defenses abrogated. It is usually assumed 
that the employe accepts the lawy unless he notifies the proper authori- 
ties of his refusal upon contracting his labor. The reasons for this op- 
tional feature are two. First, the law is so new and contains so many 
experimental and innovational features that legislators believe it w ise to 
gradually introduce it. Again, some legislatures feared the law' v'ould 
be declared unconstitutional, with compulsory provisions whereby the 
common law is invalidated. Such states hope to overcome this outcome 
by requiring the employer to divest himself of the common law defenses 
as a penalty. In case of employes electing not to accept the law with 
an employer who has so accepted, the common law defenses remain in 
force. The courts of Massachusetts and Wisconsin have recently up- 
held these modifications in their states, which lends force to this feature 
and points toward the acceptance of this view. 
A few' states — Washington, Montana and New York — have made the 
law compulsory for hazardous industries, while others, as California 
and Wisconsin, do so for all state, county, town, village and school dis- 
trict employes. 
2. Sources and the administration of funds, fa) Sources: With the 
exception of Ohio, which collects 90% of the fund from the employer 
and 10% from the employe, the law s provide for the entire payment by 
the employer. The considerations which underlie this provision are that 
