Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

They say it is unfair that an injured employee who earns fifty dollars per week should receive compensation at the rate of ten to twenty dollars per week. Why should this difference not also. be passed on to the ultimate consumer? It is considered that when an industry is paying its workmen such wages, the cost of industrial accidents is thereby paid in advance by the comsumer to the worker. He is earning as much as many employers, and, like the employer, is expected to save part of his earnings for old age and periods of possible disability. Though the more potent and controlling reason is that it is socially unwise to pay the injured worker full wages, or enough to permit him to live in comparative comfort or even luxury during his period of disability, because of the encouragement to carelessness and to fraud and imposition through the tendency to malinger. The result being, that every industry would be compelled to carry a large false production cost represented by the payments made. to such malingering workers. Experience has demonstrated that this condition becomes burdensome where the weekly compensation is large.

Bradbury in his work on workmen's compensation gives the source of much of the remaining opposition to compensation laws and the answer thereto, in the following paragraph, page 1, 3rd edition. "Until very recently it has been difficult for American lawyers to reconcile themselves to the fundamental changes which workmen's compensation laws accomplish in the principles underlying doctrines with which they have long been familiar. The declaration that an employer shall be responsible for injuries to his workmen, whether or not the master is at fault, has, until very recently, in most parts of the United States, met with almost instant opposition whenever it has been made. Nevertheless, the compensation principle, when carefully analyzed, undoubtedly rests on sound economic, legal and moral foundations. Testimony from foreign countries and a rapidly increasing fund of evidence from many of the States of the Urion, prove that it is not taking the employer's property without due process of law to compel him to pay compensation to an injured workman, when the injury is due to a risk which

is necessarily incident to the business. An assertion to the contrary is an economic fallacy."

6. The Arizona Copper Co., Ltd. v. Hammer, 250 U. S. 400, 4 W. C. L. J. 321.

CHAPTER II.

ELECTION, REJECTION AND CONSTITUTIONALITY OF

Sec.

ACTS.

4. Elective and Compulsory Acts, Constitutionality.

5.

Constitutionality of Miscellaneous Provisions.

6. Presumption of and Notice of Election and Rejection.

[blocks in formation]

9. Effect, Contractual Nature of Election and Duress.

10. Election, When Exempted By Having Less Than Stated Number of Employees.

11.

Election By Farmers, Employers of Domestic Servants, Casual
Employees And Outworkers.

12. Election as To Part Only Of Employees.

13. Election To Reject And Abolition Of Common Law Defenses. Election By Minors and Minors Generally.

14.

15. Election To Reject And Action For Damages.

Acts,

Constitutionality.—

§ 4. Elective and Compulsory Acts, The Supreme Court of the United States has declared constitutional both the compulsory1 and elective form of act. There are only three states in which the first law enacted, was held unconstitutional. Since these decisions both state and federal

1. Mountain Timber Co. v. Washington (March 1917) 243 U. S. 219, 61 L. Ed. 685, 13 N. C. C. A. 927; Camunas v. N. Y. & P. R. S. S. Co. (1919) 171 C. C. A. 76.

2.

Hawkins v. Bleakly (March 1917) 243 U. S. 210; 61 L. Ed. 678, 37 Sup. Ct., 255, 13 N. C. C. A, 959; N. Y. Central R. R. Co. v. White (March 1917) 243, U. S. 188, 13 N. C. C. A. 943, 61 L. E. 667, 37 Sup. Ct. 247; Gauthier v. Penobscot Chemical Co., Me. 1921, 113 Atl. 28.

[ocr errors]

3. Ives v. South Buffalo Ry. Co. (March 1911) 201 N. Y. 271, 94 N. E. 431, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 162, 1 N. C. C. A. 517, on the ground that it imposed upon employers a liability without fault or contract; Cunningham v. North Western Improvement Co., 44 Mont. 180, 119 Pac. 554, 1 N. C. C. A. 720, held it denied to employers equal protection of the laws; Kentucky State Journal v. Workmen's Compensation Board, 161 Ky. 562, 162 Ky. 387, L. R. A. 1916 A. 402, 172 S. W. 674, L. R. A. 1916 B, 389 various grounds mentioned.

4. The following are leading cases in the state courts sustaining the constitutionality of the compensation acts of their respective States:

courts have uniformly sustained the general constitutional questions involved in the Workmen's Compensation Acts,

4 Continued.

5. Hawkins v. Bleakley, 220 Fed. 378; Raymond v. Chicago, etc. R. Co, 233 Fea. 239.

Arizona-Superior & Pittsburg Copper Co. v. Davidovich, 19 Ariz. 402, 171 Pac. 127, 16 N. C. C. A. 801; 1 W. C. L. J. 727; C. A. S. Co. v. Ujack, 15 Ariz. 382; Arizona Copper Co. v. Hammer, 250 U. S. 400, 4 W. C. L. J. 321; New Cornelia Copper Co. v. Espineza, (Cir. Ct. of App.) (Ariz.), 268 Fed. 742; Indus. Comm. v. Crisman (Ariz.), 199 Pac. 390, 1921 Act unconstitutional. California-Western Indemnity Co. v. Pillsbury, 170 Cal. 686, 10 N. C. C. A. 1, 151 Pac. 398; Western Indem. Co. v. Indus. Comm., Cal.

[ocr errors]

163 Pac. 60, Al. W. C. L. J. 222; Metal Co. v. Pillsbury, 156 Pac. 491, 172 Cal. 407;

Illinois-Deibeikus v. Link Bolt Co., 251 Ill. 454, 104 N. E. 211; Strom v. Postal Telegraph Co., 271 Ill. 544, 111 N. E. 555; Victor Chemical Works v. Industrial Board, 274 Ill. 11, 113 N. E. 173; Casperis Stone Co. v. Indus. Comm. III. 115 N. E. 822. Iowa-Hunter v. Colfax Coal Co., 154 N. W. 1037, 11 N. C. C. A. 886, 175 Ia, 245.

[ocr errors]

Kansas-Shade v. Ash Grove Co., 93 Kan. 257, 144 Pac. 249; Hovis v. Cudahy Co., 95 Kan. 505, 148 Pac. 626.

Kentucky-Greene v. Caldwell, 186 S. W. 648, 150 Ky. 571.

Maine-In re Mailman, 118 Me. 172, 106 Atl. 396, Fish's Case, 118 Me. 489, 107 Atl. 32, 4 W. C. L. J. 390. Maryland-Solvuca v. Ryan and Reilly Co., 710.

Md. App.

[ocr errors]

101 Atl.

Massachusetts-Opinions of Justices, 209 Mass. 607, 96 N. E. 308; Young v. Duncan, 218 Mass. 346, 106 N. E. 1. Duart v. Simmons 231 Mass. 313, 121 N. E. 10, 3 W. C. L. J. 136.

Michigan-Mackin v. Detroit-Timkin Axle Co., 187 Mich. 8. 153, N. W. 49; Wood v. City of Detroit, 155 N. W. 592, L. R. A. 1916 C. 388. Minnesota-Matheson v. Minneapolis Street Ry., 126 Minn. 286, 148 N. W. 71.

Montana-Lewis & Clark County v. Industrial Board, 155 Pac. 208; Shea v. North Butte Mining Co., 3 W. C. L. J. 768, 179 Pac. 499. New Hampshire-Wheeler v. Contootuck Mills, 94 Atl. 265, 77 N. H. 551.

New Jersey-Sexton v. Newark Dist. Tel. Co., 84 N. J. L. 85, 3 N. C. C. A. 569, 86 Atl. 451, 86 N. J. L. 701, 91 Atl. 1070; Huyett v. Penna Ry. Co., 86 N. J. L. 683, 92 Atl. 58; Troth v. Millville Bottle Works, 86 N. J. L. 558, 91 Atl. 1031.

though in some states minor provisions of the acts have been held unconstitutional."

6. Courter v. Simpson Construction Co., 246 Ill. 488; 106 N. E. 350. Great Western Power Co. v. Pillsbury, 170 Cal. 180, 149 Pac. 35; 9 N. C.

4 Continued.

. 514, 109 N. E. 79, 9 N. C. C. A. (N. Y.) ? W.C. L.

[ocr errors]

N. Dak.

175

[ocr errors]

New York-Jensen v. Southern Pac. Co., 215 N. 600, L.R. A. 1916 A, 493 Ann. Cas. 1916 B, 286; Sperduto v. New York City Int. Ry. Co. J. 503, 226 N. Y. 73, 123 N. E. 207. North Dakota--State ex rel. Amerland v. Hagan, N. W. 372, 5 W. C. L. J. 446. Ohio-Ex rel. Yaple v. Creamer, 85 Ohio St. 349; 97 N. E. 602, 1 N. C. C. A. 30; Jeffrey Mfg. Co., v. Blagg, 90 Ohio 376, 108 N. E. 465, Affirmed, 235 U. S. 571, 59 L. Ed. 364, 35 Sup. Ct. 167, 7 N. C. C. A. 570.

Oklahoma-Adams v. Iten Biscuit Co., 162 Pac. 938.

Oregon-Evanhoff v. State Ind. Commission, 154 Pac. 106. 78 Ore. 503.

Pennsylvania-Anderson v. Carnegie Steel Co., 99 Atl. 215, 255 Pa.

33.

Rhode Island-Sayles v. Foley, 96 Atl. 340, 38 R. I, 484.

Texas-Middleton v. Texas Power & Light Co., 178 S. W. 956, 185 S.

W. 556; Marshall Mill & Elevator Co. v. Schanberg (Tex. Civ.
App.) 190 S. W. 229.

Utah-Garfield Smelting Co. v. Ind. Com. of Utah, 3 W. C. L. J. 531.
178 Pac. 57; Reteuna v. Indus. Comm., Utah - 185 Pac. 535,

5 W. C. L. J. 327.

----

Washington-State ex rel. Davis-Smith Co. v. Clausen, 65 Wash, 156, 117 Pac. 1101, 37 L. R. A. (N. S.) 466, 3 N. C. C. A. [99; State v. City of Seattle, 73 Wash. 390, 132 Pac. 45; Stertz v. Industrial Commission, 158 Pac. 256; State v. Mountain Timber Co., 75 Wasa, 581, 135 Pac. 645, 5 N. C. C. A. 811. West Virginia-De Francesco v. Piney Mining Co., 76 W. Va. 756, 86 S. E. 777, 10 N C. C. A. 1015, Rhodes v. J. B. B. Coal Co., 90 S. E. 796, 79 W. Va. 71, 78 W. Va. 144, Watts v. Ohio Valley Electric Co., 88 S. E. 659.

Wisconsin-Borgnis v. Falk, 147 Wis. 327, 133 N. W. 209, 3 N. C. C.A. 649, 37 L. R. A. (N. S.) 489.

The following states have adopted amendments to their constitutions to permit of compulsory laws, i, e.: California (1911), Ohio (1912), New York (1913), Pennsylvania (1915), and in California an amendment further enlarging the power of the Legislature is pending. Under the Constitution of Arizona and Wyoming definite forms of compensation laws are prescribed.

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »