Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 18.pdf/242

 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION IN ENGLAND negligence, and upon the legislative enact ments requiring masters to compensate their servants for injuries and for accidents in the course of their employment. The master's common law liability has been very clearly stated by Mr. A.H. Ruegg, K.C., the leading authority and counsel of the English Bar, upon actions for damage for personal injuries as follows: "The mas ter is responsible to his workman for the consequences of personal injury caused by his personal negligence if judgment can be obtained against him during his lifetime, but he is not responsible to the relatives or personal representatives of a deceased work man. He is absolved from responsibility for the negligence of those to whom he dele gates the duty of management and control of his business, and for the negligence of fellow workmen of the workman injured. He can be freed from responsibility by show ing that the injured workman took the risk of his breach of duty, or by showing that the injured workman was himself guilty of contributory negligence." Scores of statutes have been enacted within the past century and a half tending to modify the common law as thus stated, and to remove the restriction which it im posed upon those injured by negligence, and with a view, particularly, to benefit work men. The first in importance was Lord Campbell's Act which has already been referred to, and which gave to the relations and personal representatives of a deceased person who had been killed or who had died from injuries, the same right against the tort feasor of the master which the workman might have had if he had survived. The next most important act was the Employers' Liability Act. This came into operation on January ist, 1891, and by it the common law doctrine of "common employment" and the theorv of "fellow workmen" were swept awav. Thence forward the master has been responsible where injury is caused to a work man (i) by reason of any defect in the con dition of the ways, works, machinery, or

plant, "but only if such defect arose, or had not been discovered or remedied, owing to his negligence or to that of the person to whom he had entrusted the duty of seeing that they are in proper condition;" (if) where the negligence is that of his workman to whom he has entrusted powers of super intendence or control; (Hi) when the injury is caused by the act or omission of any person in his employment done in obedience to his rules or by-laws, or the particular instruc tions of any person delegated by him with authority, and (iv) when the negligence is that of any person in the service of the employer who has charge of the signals, the locomotive, or the train upon a railway. While the workman and his relatives were thus greatly benefited, the act restricted the amount of damages or compensation which he or they might recover if recourse was had to the Act. The compensation recoverable, the statute says "shall not exceed such sum as may be equivalent to the estimated earn ings, during the three years preceding the injury, of a person in the same grade em ployed during those years in the like em ployment and in the district in which the workman is employed at the time of the injury." The act further provides that no compensation shall be recoverable unless notice of the injury was given within six weeks and the action was brought within twelve months. The action may be brought in the County Court where a speedier and less expensive trial is supposed to be ob tained. Following this legislation came the Work men's Compensation Act of 1897. This introduced an entirely new feature into the relations of master and workmen. The common law and all previous statutes were based upon the theory of contract. The new act made the master, by statute, an insurer of the lives and safety of his employ ees, and imposed upon him a liability in this respect independent of any breach of duty on his part or on the part of his servants. The act, however, was not general but ap