WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION. Until 188o the only remedy which the law of Great Britain provided for a workman who had suffered physical injury in the course of his employment was a common law action in which the plaintiff had to establish that his injury was due to some personal fault in the employer, as that the employer had been guilty of personal negligence, or had knowingly employed an incompetent servant, or had corn mitted a breach of some statutory duty. Even if the expense which had to be incurred was not an insurmountable obstacle, the cases where a workman would hope to recover damages for his injury by means of a common law action were comparatively rare. In an action for negligence formidable defences were avail able to the employer. Contributory negligence in the workman himself would be pleaded as a matter of course, and if it was es tablished that the plaintiff could, by the exercise of ordinary care, have avoided the consequences of the defendant's negligence the action must fail. The doctrine of volenti non fit injuria might destroy the injured workman's right to damages on the ground that, knowing the risk he was running, he expressly or impliedly agreed to accept that risk. Then there was the defence of "corn mon employment," which deprived the plaintiff of his right to damages when his injury was due to the negligence of a fellow workman. Moreover, the position of the dependants of a workman whose injuries had proved fatal was more desperate still, for the right of action was personal to the injured man and died with him. Lord Campbell's Act of 1846 created an exception to this rule in favour of a wife, husband, parent or child of the deceased, and enabled an action to be brought for the benefit of that limited class of persons in respect of the workman's death as a result of another's wrongful act or negligence. But the de fences which were available in an action by the injured workman himself remained available as against the dependants of a work man whose injuries had proved fatal. So where a bricklayer was killed by the collapse of scaffolding which had been erected by men in the employment of the same employer who had not himself superintended the work, it was held that the master builder was under no liability (W igmore v. Jay 5 Ex. 354)
Thereafter two different currents of opinion as to the manner in which the unsatisfactory state of the law should be remedied are observable. On the one hand, there was the view that any remedial measure should fit into the framework of the existing common law rules, and that all that was necessary was that those rules should be modified to remedy particular grievances. This school of thought found expression in the Employers' Liability Bill, introduced in 1893 by Asquith, who thus indicated its three vital principles : "The first is that it abolishes the doctrine of common employment ; the second is that it prohibits contracts by a workman renouncing his statutory rights ; and thirdly, it sim plifies the procedure by means of which the workman can seek his statutory remedy." The views of the opposing body of opin ion were expressed in the amendment moved by Joseph Chamber lain when Asquith's bill was before the house of commons : "That no amendment of the law relating to employers' liability will be final or satisfactory which does not provide compensation to workmen for all injuries sustained in the ordinary course of their employment and not caused by their own acts or default." The House of Commons passed Asquith's bill, but abandoned it rather than accept an amendment of the House of Lords, the purpose of which was the preservation of the principle of contracting out, although subject to certain safeguards.
The British Workmen's Compensation Acts.—The Work men's Compensation Act 1897 introduced a new principle into the law of the relationship between master and servant by imposing a liability on the employer to pay compensation to an injured workman, or if his injury proved fatal, to his dependants, al though there had been no wrongful act or omission on the part of the employer or of anyone employed by him. Liability was im posed no less upon the employer who was blameless than upon him who had been guilty of negligence. Contracting-out was for bidden, save where an equally advantageous scheme, duly cer tified as such by the Registrar of Friendly Societies, was substi tuted for liability under the Act.