TABLE XXVIII.-PARTIALLY DISABLED FOR LIFE, TAKEN

FROM RECORDS OF POOR COMMISSION-PERIOD, 1910.

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS.

The Commission concluded from the investigation of which the foregoing is a synopsis, not only that industrial accidents in Michigan occurred to a number to justify remedial legislation, but that on the whole the compensation received by the injured person was not adequate, and that by reason of the present legal rules large sums of money were expended by employers as a protection against damages arising from industrial accidents, while but a small percentage of the sums so expended actually resulted in any benefit to the injured. It concluded that the litigation which is now uniformly the result of an industrial accident is the cause of great expense, not only to the injured but to the employer and that this expense is an actual and economic loss and waste.

It was apparent, therefore, that if a change in the present system could be effected by which the burden of industrial accidents could be more equitably distributed, the injured person receive more compensation, the employer be protected against the unreasonable risks of excessive verdicts, and the community at large be saved the expense caused to it by present litigation between the parties and society in general could be relieved of the animosity engendered by the strife arising under the present conditions-if these results could be accomplished by a change in the present legal system, such a change was most earnestly to be desired.

REMEDIES, MODIFICATION OF PRESENT LAW.

Various remedies were proposed to the Commission, and considered by it in its discussions. One proposal which was argued with considerable insistence, and indorsed by high authority, was that the defences of the employer be modified or abolished. The Federal Government, by the Employers' Liability Act of 1908, qualified the assumption of risk defense as to common carriers "when the violation by a common carrier of any statute enacted for the safety of employes contributed to the injury of the employe." In some states the same rule has been modified where the accident occurs through a defect of machinery, of which the victim had given notice. (See Massachusetts Revised Laws, 1902, par. 71; New York, 1902, Sec. 600, par. 1. Ohio Annotated Statutes, par. 3365. Connecticut General Statutes, 1902, par. 4702; Pennsylvania statutes 1907, chapter 329; Alabama Code 1901, chapter 89, 1910 and others.)

The State of Ohio has in a general way already modified the common law by providing that all questions of contributory negligence were to be left to the jury. This was likewise the requirement of the Federal Employers' Liability Act of 1906. Michigan in 1909, by Act 104 of its Public Acts, provided that the contributory negligence of an employe of a railroad company should not bar his recovery, if it were of a less degree than the negligence of the railroad company, its officers or employes, and that no employe should be held to have been guilty of

contributory negligence where the violation of a statute for the safety of employes of railroad companies contributed to the injury, and that such employe should not be held to have assumed the risk of his employment where a violation by the common carrier of any statute enacted for the safety of employes contributed to the injury. This statute is common in many states, and in Oklahoma and Missouri it has been extended to mines.

In Maine in 1909, the fellow-servant rule was abolished for all employes except domestic, farm laborers and lumbermen. Other modifications of one or another of the employers' defences have been made elsewhere.

This remedy seemed, however, in the opinion of the Commission to be entirely inadequate and ineffective. It will be remembered that a very considerable percentage of the accidents are usually due to causes which cannot be traced in any respect whatever to the negligence of the employer. If we may adopt the results of the investigation of Miss Eastman in the Pittsburg district, (page 104, Work, Accidents and the Law), it is apparent that 54.12% are not due in any way to the negligence of the employer, so that a modification of the defences would not materially assist the workmen to secure compensation. Even if these defences should be completely abolished and not simply modified, as above stated, there would still be left more than fifty per cent of the accidents for which no compensation whatever could be secured, and this notwithstanding the large proportion of these accidents would be chargeable to the risks that surround modern industry. Not only this, but the modification of these defences would tend to increase litigation in the courts by enlarging the workman's ability to maintain an action for damages, and with this litigation would still be present the vicious gamble of the verdict, which is, after all, the source of the greatest waste. It would seem, therefore, that the only rational solution of the difficulty would be the adoption of some plan that would effectually put an end to the continual increase of litigation over industrial accidents.

REMEDIES,—WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.

The second proposal, that of Workmen's Compensation, contemplates a complete change in the theory upon which damages for industrial accidents rests. As we have seen, the present system is based upon a showing of the employer's negligence. Workmen's Compensation rests upon the theory that the industry should bear the hazards of all accidents. This theory is known as workmen's compensation to distinguish it from employers' liability, the term applied to the present legal system. It contemplates the payment of a fixed sum of money for every injury, thus endeavoring to abolish litigation to a degree, and to give compensation to every accident irrespective of fault, unless the fault be wilful on the part of the employe. No attempt will be made here to examine the laws of this character which have been enacted in every country in Europe except Switzerland and have likewise become a part of the law of many of the British provinces in the various parts of the world. A complete resume of these various laws will be found in United