Workmen's Compensation in United movement for compensation legis lation did not reach the United States until some 2S years after it began in Europe. Meanwhile the rapid industrialization of the country made the problem of industrial accidents a very grave one. The conditions of Employers' Liability based upon the Anglo-Saxon common law arc very much less favorable to the in jured workman than the Code Civil of Euro pean countries. The.doctrines of 'fellow serv ant,* 'contributory negligence* and 'assump tion of risk' substantially affected the pro portion of cases in which recovery was pos sible. For years legislative efforts were made to strengthen the liability of employers by com plex legislation and the result was very much increased litigation with greater waste for attorney's fees, occasional heavy verdicts, and on the whole, very limited compensation to the injured.
Agitation for a radical change to a system of compensation appeared sporadically even toward the close of the last century, but gained strength only toward 1910, when a veritable flood of legislation appeared. The earlier acts were declared unconstitutional. In fact, the famous Ives decision by which the New York Compensation Act of 1910 was declared un constitutional, influenced the subsequent de velopment of legislation very strongly. A very large number of States adopted the so-called New Jersey or elective system. According to this system employers may elect or reject to come under a compensation system. But the penalty for rejection is a strengthening of the liability provisions by the abolition of some or all of the three doctrines above referred to, of 'fellow servant, contributory negligence or assumption of cost,• while the award for election is freedom from the obligations of em ployers' liability. In fact, most of the States are still operating their compensation under this elective system except Arizona, California, New York, Ohio, Washington, Wyoming, Maryland, Oklahoma. Of these seven States three (California, New York and Ohio) took the precaution to amend their State constitu tions before passing compulsory acts, while in the other States the opinion prevailed that compulsory laws were not contrary to the Constitution of either the State or the Union. Opinions differ among authorities on Consti tutional Law as to whether both compulsory or even elective (with their hidden methods of coercion) are in accordance with the Consti tution of the United States.
The necessity of making compensation ac ceptable to employers under an elective system has kept the scale of benefits down so as to make it cheaper. The benefit scale of the numerous acts fluctuates considerably, the New York act of 1913resenting the highest, and J the acts of New Jersey, Colorado, Pennsyl vania the lowest levels of compensation, so that on an average the New York acts offers alum twice as much to the injured workman as the acts of New Jersey or Pennsylvania. Considerable dissatisfaction with the provisions of compensation acts is, therefore, rapidly ac cumulating. Most frequent causes mentioned is the length of the waiting period which re mains two weeks in most acts, the 50 per cent scale of compensation, which is the rule, only c it si s a, ts has mg raised it to ($ per cent or (i“ per cent and the strict time limitation for permanent well as fatal at,i di between 300 and ;00 weeks In some howeser, the necessity for lift pen sion in total or otherwise serious disabilities has been recognized (notably New York and California) as well as life pensions to widows.
An interesting feature of American C0111. pensatiou acts is the so called dismember ment schedule, i.e., a schedule of specific bene fits expressed in number of weeks of payments for loss of extremities or its thereof. This was first introduced in New Jersey, being adopted from the usual commercial accident insurance contracts and was accepted by almost all of the other acts, because of its sunplicity and ease of adjustment. It is questioned bow just such an appraisal of surgical injuries ir respective of occupational difference can he The tentative character of these benefit pro visions is shown by the very large number of amendatory acts notwithstanding the abort history of compensation in this country. In Massachusetts the amendments of 1914 in creased the average value of benefits by nearly 50 per cent. In other States elective acts were
substituted by compulsory acts (California. Ohio, Maryland), in others the administrative provisions have been thoroughly rewritten The strongest tendency in administration is the establishment of special commissions or board for adjudication of disputed claims and con trol of all settlements.
Compensation Insurance.— The compensa tion principle establishes new relations between employers and employees. In a certain sense it makes the employer an insurer of the em ployee. Unless, however, the principle of in surance would be further developd compen sation might prove a very serious hazard to the employer, especially the smaller (employer. Most compensation laws contain, therefore, provision for insurance by means of which a collective responsibility takes the place of the individual responsibility of the employer. In some acts such insurance is compulsory and in the other only permissive. As to the or ganization of insurance an active struggle may be observed between ordinary commercial (stock) insurance companies, mutual insurance companies on general lines, employers' associa tions or State funds. The strmle itself either in legislative forms and provision for others, or in open competition between co-existing various forms A classification of the various compensation acts according to their insurance system may he presented in tabular form as follows (II Compulsory insurance in prescribed carriers (a) In a monopolistic State insurance fund (Norway, Switzerland. Ohio. Washington. Wyoming, Nevada. Oregon, West Virginia) (b) In employers' mutual association con trolled by the State (Luxemburg. Roumania. Servia, Hungary, Austria, Russia. German!. Greece). (2) Compulsory insurance with choice of insurance form. (a) State fund competing with private or mutual insurance companies (Italy, Netherlands, Maryland. Nes Y,.rk, Oklahoma. Michigan. Colorado. Penn s.lvania. Montana): (11) Private or mutual insurance companies (Massachusetts. Texas. (',innecticut. Illinois. Iowa, Wiscoo.sin. Ind.• sits. Maine) (3) Voltultar• insurance Site fund competing with private or mutual it surauce carriers (Sweden, France, PoritniaL California) • (b) Private or mutual insurance carriers only (Belgium, Great Britain, Spain, Lichtenstein, British Colonies, Japan, Nuevo Leon, Peru, Venezuela, Cuba, Alaska, Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island).
In the United States the principle of com pulsory insurance has evidently made substan tial gains. In some form this principle is found in 22 States, though in 15 of these, compensation itself is, in form at least, elect ive. Another significant feature brought out by this table is the development of State in surance, not only in Europe but in the United States.
Monopolistic State Compensation Insurance is found in Europe in Norway, Switzerland; in the United States in Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming.
Competitive State Compensation Insurance is found in Europe in Italy, Netherlands, France, Sweden, Portugal; in the United States in Maryland, New York, California, Michigan, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Montana. Altogether state compensation insurance is found in seven European countries and 13 States of the American Union.
This development indicates a growing tend ency to eliminate both private profits and the high expenses of private competitive business out of this field, so that insurance can be furnished to employers at cost and the burden to industry made as light as possible. See SOCIAL. INSURANCE and the authorities there listed.
Boyd, J. H., 'Workmen's Compensation and. Industrial Insurance under Modern Conditions' (Indianapolis 1913) ; Bradbury, H. B., 'Workmen's Compensation and State Insurance Law in the United (New York 1912) ; Clark, L. D., 'The Law of the Employment of Labor' (New York 1911) ; Eastman, C., 'Work Accidents and the Law' (New York 1910) ; Schwedtmen, F. C. and Emery, J. E., 'Accident Prevention and Relief' (New York 1911) ; 'American Labor Legislation Review) (Vols: I-VII) ; 'Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Lahor Statis tics' (No. 126, 155, 185) ; 'National Confer ence on Workingmen's Compensation for Industrial Accidents.' (Reports, 1909-10) ; Publications of Workmen's Compensation Publicity Bureau.'