Along with the industrial development the problems of protection of workmen against the results of accidents, sickness, and old age have been growing in importance and have commanded increasing attention.

The workmen's compensation act of June 2 (15), 1903, embracing all large industries, is perhaps the most important result in the domain of workmen's insurance. It has introduced a system of compensation of workmen against industrial accidents within a rather limited scope.

In the field of old-age insurance the existing provisions embrace almost exclusively the individual employees of the State. Of the private employees thus provided for the most important are the railroad employees, for whom old-age pension funds were established in 1888. In view of the extensive undertakings of the Russian Government, however, the existing old-age pension funds cover a very large body of industrial wage-earners. The pension fund for government railroad employees was organized in 1894, the fund for employees of the liquor monopoly in 1900, etc.

Very much less has been established in the domain of provision against sickness, though the earliest social labor legislation concerned itself with the care of the men in factories in case of sickness. Special laws concerning employees of certain state establishments were promulgated early in the nineteenth century, and general provisions in the form of temporary regulations were made in 1866, requiring the factory owners to furnish medical aid and if necessary hospital treatment to the sick employees. Thus from the very beginning the problem of medical treatment was separated from that of financial aid during sickness, and the burden of such medical treatment was placed upon the employer. Fairly satisfactory results were obtained in this branch of sickness insurance, but almost no progress was made in the other branch.

Thus, the entire situation in regard to workmen's insurance in Russia may be summarized as follows:

1. An accident compensation law of 1903, followed by a series of special laws for various groups of government employees,

2. The law of 1866 requiring the furnishing of medical treatment in factories (extended in 1886 to mines), and

3. A series of special institutions for old-age and invalidity insurance and relief mainly of government employees.

In addition to these provisions for the welfare of the wage-earners, as established by laws and governmental decrees, there is in Russia but little that can be traced to voluntary efforts, either of the employer or of the employees themselves.

Within the last few years, and especially since the establishment of the National Legislature, considerable activity has manifested itself

in the preparation of legislative proposals for comprehensive insurance systems, including all the three main branches of workmen's insurance, against accidents, sickness, and old age and invalidity. Such proposals were published in 1905, 1906, 1907, and 1908, and the last ones were formally introduced in the Duma and await the action of this body.

ACCIDENT INSURANCE.

EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY.

The system of workmen's compensation in Russia grew out of the development of the idea of employers' liability. A consideration of the principles governing the liability of employers for injuries sustained by workmen in the course of their employment is important, not only for historical reasons but because employers' liability still remains the only means of redress for workmen not included under the provisions of the law of 1903.

Until the promulgation of this law the Russian code did not include any special law to determine the general principles of the employers' liability for industrial injuries. Such measures as passed prior to 1903 were intended for relief of definite classes of wage-earners, primarily state and railroad employees. The responsibility of employers for results of industrial accidents was based altogether upon the general provisions of the Russian code in regard to general responsibility for results of acts committed, whether criminal or not. According to article 644 of Volume X, part 1, of the Russian code, a person guilty of committing a crime, whether with or without intent, must compensate for all losses directly caused by his act, and according to article 645 he must also compensate for all losses, even though very remote, if it be proven that the overt act was committed with the intent to cause losses to the victim of the act, while the following section exempts such losses as are caused by accidental acts, without intent and without any negligence.

The sections of the code quoted apply only to criminal acts, but the failure to convict the person of any criminal act does not relieve him of the civil liability for any losses caused by his acts, for this liability is established by other sections of the code. Moreover, in these sections the civil responsibility is much broader than that laid down in the sections mentioned above. Section 684 provides that "each person is obliged to compensate for damage and losses caused to any party by his act or omission, even if not criminal, provided he had not been forced to commit that act by demands of law, or of the Government, or in self-defense, or by a combination of circumstances which he could not prevent." Furthermore, section 687 establishes also the responsibility of a person not only for his acts, but also for those of his agents, and that of a master for the acts of

a servant.

Taken together, articles 684 and 687 establish the law of liability for injuries in general. They extend as much protection to the employee as they do to the injured outsider, and this feature is the most characteristic one of the general Russian system of employers' liability. Special legislation in regard to special groups of employees, which will be stated presently, has extended the liability of employers. But any restrictions of the rights of the employees for compensation in case of accidents, as compared with the rights of outsiders, such as the doctrine of common employment or the fellow-servant doctrine, are altogether foreign to the Russian law.

In their application to industrial accidents and to employers' liability to their employees, these basic provisions of the law were considerably influenced by the decision of the Governing Senate, the highest judicial body of the land. According to these decisions the master is responsible for all acts of the servant which have been. committed by the latter in the performance of his duties. The problem of negligence or fault does not enter into the discussion; the liability depending, according to the wording of the law, upon the question whether the accident was preventable or not, only nonpreventable accidents forming an exception to the liability. Intent, or fault, or negligence may be important to determine the presence of criminal liability, but some definite act or omission and the preventable nature of the accident are sufficient to establish the civil liability of the employer.

Article 687 does not clearly establish upon whom the burden of evidence should fall, simply stating that the person shall not be liable for his act or that of his agent if it shall be proven that the accident was unpreventable. This proof then being a part of the defense, it was established by many decisions of the Governing Senate that according to the general rules of civil procedure the plaintiff may establish his claim by proving only the injury, the accident, and the specific act of the employer or his agent causing the accident; and that the burden of showing the accident to have been unpreventable or that the agent was acting against his orders rests upon the defendant, being evidence to the rebuttal of the claim.

In addition to the general liability of a person for the results of his acts or omissions, the Russian code also establishes definite principles as to the limits of this liability. After the general fact of liability has been established the same compensation is due whether the act had been a criminal one or not; in other words the amount of compensation does not in any degree depend upon the nature of the act which had caused the loss. In general the compensation must be equal to the loss sustained; therefore the law requires that in case of a fatal accident the person liable for the accident shall give means of support to the widow of the deceased until remarriage, to

the dependent parents until death, to the sons until of age, and to the daughters until marriage, etc.; the person liable for the accident must cover the cost of medical treatment until recovery or death and funeral expenses, cost of support of family and dependents during illness, and a pension for life in cases of permanent, partial, or complete disability to earn a living. While the definite amounts of the pensions, depending upon the earnings of the injured or deceased is determined by the courts, the law provides that the compensation for loss of earning power must be in the form of annual payments, and, according to a senate decision, the plaintiff has no right to demand a lump-sum payment. This does not prevent a peaceful settlement by a lump sum outside of the court.

POLAND AND THE BALTIC PROVINCES.

The liability laws described above do not apply to the entire Russian territory, the 10 provinces constituting Russian Poland and the three Baltic provinces of Livonia, Esthonia, and Courland being exempt from the provisions of Volume X of the Russian code.

The French Civil Code is in force in Poland. Here, too, the employers' liability until 1903 was based mainly upon the general liability of a person for damages caused by his act or omission, by negligence or carelessness, or by the acts or negligence, etc., of his servants when committed in the performance of their duties. The law of 1903 provides that a contractor is responsible for the acts of his employees. This does not permit the exemption from liability because of the unpreventable nature of the accidents and the liability is better established than in the Russian code proper, the defense being that the negligence of the servant did not take place during the performance of his duties or execution of the master's orders.

A special civil code is in force in the Baltic provinces. According to this code, the employers' liability for damages sustained by his employees is also based upon the general liability laws. While the provisions are very strict in regard to the liability of a person for his personal acts only, the responsibility of a master for the act of his servant is subject to the proof of the servant's unfitness for his position. The law clearly acknowledges the doctrine of contributory negligence in denying the right to recover where the plaintiff by proper care could have prevented the accident.

It appears that the status of employers' liability throughout the greater part of the Russian Empire, as based upon the law interpreted by the senate decisions, was considerably more favorable to the injured employee than is that under English common law. The fellow-servant doctrine was unknown and the doctrine of contributory negligence had a very limited application, the Governing Senate having established by its decisions that in cases of negligence on the

part of both the employer and the injured employee the latter is entitled to partial compensation. The law provides that the compensation shall be in the form of annual payments.

With all that, the usual drawbacks of a liability system appeared. The great number of injuries due to the unavoidable negligence of the employees themselves, especially in view of the low educational standard of the Russian workman, and many other accidents, unavoidable because of the conditions of work, or caused in some way which it is difficult to explain, were necessarily left uncompensated. Even in those cases which clearly came under the provisions of the liability laws protracted litigation was necessary; but litigation was very difficult for the Russian workman and therefore settlements for small amounts were usually effected even in those cases where the liability of the employer was evident.

LIABILITY OF RAILROAD AND STEAMSHIP COMPANIES.

The hazardous nature of the occupation of railroad and steamship employees has in most countries brought about special legislation extending the liability of the employers in these industries for injuries to employees long before general compensation or liability legislation was adopted. This liability was established by the act of May 12 (24), 1852, which referred only to railways and to accidents happening in the movement of trains, and closely followed Prussian legislation of 1838. The law was amended and extended to steamship companies in its present form in 1878, and in this connection may be mentioned the general railroad law of June 12, 1885. In section 683 no distinction is drawn between injuries to employees and passengers or outside persons, so that the rights of the employees are not specially safeguarded, nor are they, on the other hand, less protected than those of the passengers. It is stated by Russian authorities that the law was originally passed with the view of protecting the passengers and that the employees were brought under the section of this law by judicial decisions. (a)

Section 683 provides that the proprietors of railroads or steamship lines, whether it be the Government, corporations, or private individuals, are required to compensate all persons injured or killed because of accidents in the operation of such properties, unless they can prove that the accident was (1) not due to the fault of the proprietors or their agents, or (2) that it was due to action of forces which could not be overcome-i. e., to vis major. It further provides that all agreements or conditions contrary to this provision are

a Otvietstvennost predpriminatelei za uviechia i smert rabochikh, V. P. LitwinovFalinskii. St. Petersburg, 1900.

Smert i uviechie pri exploatatzii zheleznykh dorog, F. Osetzki. St. Petersburg, 1890.