Progress in Legislation Concerning Industrial Accidents

Abstract

After years of discussion, the case against our present American method of dealing with industrial accidents is fully made out; the difficulty is to agree upon an adequate and constitutional remedy. In this discussion the representatives of great employers of labor have been among the strongest advocates of remedial legislation. Already many of our great corporations have abandoned the negligence theory as being both unjust and inexpedient. In the large industries, voluntary arrangements between employers and employees have already accomplished much. It still remains, however, to apply the compelling process of the law to the many, particularly to the smaller employers, who still linger haltingly in the old morass of care and negligence. Two main questions arise for present consideration: Ist: What may American Legislatures constitutionally do? 2d: Assuming freedom of choice, what is the system to choose? Of actual remedial legislation there is little. Washington has just adopted a species of state insurance applicable to so-called hazardous occupations. New Jersey has dealt with the problem by passing an act which takes away from the employers practically every defence known to the common law, providing also an elective compensation scheme, which compensation scheme is presumed to be a part of all contracts of hiring made subsequent to the act, unless the parties in writing otherwise expressly provide. Manifestly, this is an attempt to make subsequent hiring contracts conform to the legislative standard of a proper public policy, without explicitly and absolutely making employers liable for accidents due in no part to their fault. The legislative status in many other states, particularly in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Ohio, makes it probable that there may be further legislation before these notes are in print. The legislative experience calling for most discussion is that of New York. In that state a very able commission made, in 190I,