Part A. Introductory.

1. Introduction and scope of note.

The purpose of this annotation is to bring together the English and Colonial and American cases involving the application and effect of the so-called workmen's compensation acts. The most radical departure in these statutes from the common law or the previous statutory law is the awarding of compensation in cases of injuries to workmen in the absence of any negligence, actual or imputed, on the part of the employer. The defenses of coservice and assumption of risk are entirely abrogated, as is the defense of contributory negligence, except in cases where the negligence of the injured servant amounts to serious or wilful misconduct. In support of these advanced steps, the injury to a workman has frequently been compared to the breaking of a machine, and as the cost of repairing the latter is borne by the industry, so should the burden of injuries to workmen be considered as an incidental expense of the business.1 In addition to giving compensation for

1 The act means that, apart from negligence, "the industry itself should be taxed with an obligation to indemnify the sufferer for what was an 'accident' causing damage." Lord Halsbury, L. C., in Brintons v. Turvey [1905] A. C. (Eng.) 230, 74 L. J. K. B. N. S. 474, 53 Week. Rep. 641, 92 L. T. N. S. 578, 21 Times L. R. 444, 2 Ann. Cas. 137.

The essential operation of the statutes herein discussed is, broadly speaking, that, irrespective of any negligence or misconduct on the master's part, the classes of servants to whom they are applicable are, in a certain sense, insured against any accident that takes place in the course of their employment. Cooper v. Wright [1902] A. C. (Eng.) 302, 71 L. J. K. B. N. S. 642, 51 Week. Rep. 12, 86 L. T. N. S. 776, 18 Times L. R. 622, per Lord Halsbury.

In 11 Journ. of Soc. of Comparative Legislation, p. 55, will be found an interesting and instructive criticism of the unsatisfactory features of this act. The learned contributor, Sir J. G. Hill, also gives much useful information concerning similar legislation in the countries of Continental Europe and elsewhere. He remarks that "the justification put forward for these new laws is that it is expedient in the public interest

injuries, for which there had been no previous common-law or statutory remedy, the attempt has also been made to simplify the procedure so as to make the recovery quickly, easily, and inexpensively obtainable, thus doing away with the great delay and expense which so often attended former actions for personal injuries to employees.2

In an annotation of this character, an investigation of the causes leading up to the passage of these acts, and the ethical, humanitarian, or sociological theories underlying them, would be out of place. The discussion will be confined to the case law upon the subject, and the judicial conclusions as to the meaning of the various provisions of the acts will be set forth, and, as far as possible, harmonized, so that the general applicability and effect of the statute, as judicially interpreted, will be shown for future guidance.

As these statutes constitute an entirely new departure in the law of employers' liability, it is not surprising that there are numerous conflicting decisions, many of which are due to the inconsistto throw the risk of accidents upon the trade in which they occur, and that the employer can recoup himself for the cost incurred by him by raising the price of his productions and by reducing wages."

2 After mentioning certain difficulties encountered by an injured workman in attempting to recover damages at common law or under the employers' liability act, Lord Brampton, in Cooper v. Wright [1902] A. C. (Eng.) 302, said: "Added to these obstacles, the law itself was for the most part too uncertain, too dilatory, and far too expensive for an ordinary workman to embark in."

Lord Stirling, in Field v. Longden [1902] 1 K. B. (Eng.) 47, 71 L. J. K. B. N. S. 120, 66 J. P. 291, 50 Week. Rep. 212, 85 L. T. N. S. 571, 18 Times L. R. 65, observed that the compensation act "was intended for the benefit of workmen, and not for that of the legal profession."

3 Lord Brampton, in Cooper v. Wright (Eng.) supra, stated that the English act was so framed as to provoke rather than to minimize litigation.

In Oliver v. Nautilus Steam Shipping Co. [1903] 2 K. B. (Eng.) 639, Lord Vaughan Williams said: "The act is not very easy to construe. It is an act as to which I