صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

prejudice had resulted. As to the claim that notice had been given, the court pointed out a distinction between the happening of a trivial accident, liable to occur in any one of many ways, and a statement that a workman at a machine where he was properly employed had been injured by it, saying that in the latter case the employer might properly be assumed to have been put on notice that an industrial accident had taken place, but that in the present circumstances no such presumption could be indulged. (Bloomfield v. November, 119 N. E. 705.)

In New Jersey, notice is required unless there is "actual knowledge" of the occurrence of the injury on the part of the employer. It was held (Allen v. Millville, 87 N. J. L. 356, 95 Atl. 130), that the law does not require first-hand knowledge by the use of this term, but that it may be understood in the popular sense; and knowledge of a proper corporate agent was held to be knowledge of a corporation.

APPEALS.

In the more technical matters of procedure, the courts have held that the terms of the law must be strictly complied with, as where a period is fixed within which an appeal must be taken from an award to secure a review by the courts. Delay in this regard was held to be fatal, the provisions of the statute establishing an absolute limitation. (Northern Pacific S. S. Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission, 168 Pac. 30; New Dells Lumber Co. v. Industrial Commission, 164 N. W. 824.) In an Ohio case (Roma v. Industrial Commission, 119 N. E. 461), however, a claimant was allowed the right of appeal where it was in evidence that his attorney had been informed of the rejection of his claim, and more than 30 days had elapsed before the appeal, it appearing that actual notice was not received by the claimant himself. The court said that to deny the rights of the claimant under such circumstances would be to take advantage of a technicality, whereas the spirit of the law required a determination on the merits of the case, and that it would not be a harsh rule to require the board to assure itself, in the event of a rejection, that the claimant was himself informed of the fact.

This case involved the right of appeal by an employee of an employer who was a self-insurer under the statute, the court of appeals of the State having held that such an appeal was not possible. This point had been decided to the contrary by the State supreme court in Reinholz v. Industrial Commission (119 N. E. 129), in which it was said that to deprive employees of self-insurers of a right enjoyed by employees of insurers in the State fund would be to create a discrimination that would lead to the invalidation of the provision of the law permitting self-insurance; but having held this section of the law constitutional, it was the duty of the court, unless the language of

the act made it impossible, to give effect to all the provisions of the law by avoiding any construction that would lead to such an unwarranted classification. It was added that if the State authorized the publication of notices by an employer to the effect that he was permitted by the board to carry his own insurance, it became the duty of the State to safeguard the employees' interests under the act; also that the self-insurer's contribution to the surplus fund provides a source from which payments under jury awards on appeal might be paid, while the State might also recoup the fund by an action against the self-insurer or his bondsman. The court of appeals was therefore reversed.

A further point involved in the appeal in the Roma case was the form of the award. The jury had allowed a recovery of $2,000 in a lump sum, but the court found that this method of payment was not in accordance with the spirit of the compensation law, and asserted its authority to modify the award, reducing it to a series of weekly payments of $8 per week for 250 weeks, this appearing to be a reasonable finding under the verdict of the jury, and in accord with the design of the legislature in the enactment of the law.

INSURANCE.

The primary importance of securing to the workman the awards potentially provided for by the compensation statutes has led to the enactment of various provisions looking toward the insurance of the employer's obligation or the making of guarantees by him that he will meet the contingent liabilities fixed by the laws. Alternative provisions are made in most States, giving an option or choice to the employer as to the mode of carrying his insurance. Where a State fund is provided, and subscription thereto is made the essential condition of conduct of an industry, questions of alternative rights are of course foreclosed. This is the case with the Washington statute, and the Supreme Court of the United States in Mountain Timber Co. v. Washington (243 U. S. 219; 37 Sup. Ct. 260) considered the form of a general but graduated tax upon industry as being a proper method of securing the efficient working of the law. The act forbids the employer to deduct any part of the insurance premium payable by him to the State fund from the wages or earnings of his workmen. As to this, the court saw a possible serious question as to the unconstitutional interference with the freedom of contract if the provisions "were to be construed so broadly as to prohibit employers and employees, in agreeing upon wages and other terms of employment, from taking into consideration the fact that the employer was a contributor to the State fund, and the resulting effect of the act upon the rights of the parties." Inasmuch, however, as there was no intimation that the clause had been so construed, the court declined to

"assume in advance that a construction will be adopted such as to bring the law into conflict with the Federal Constitution."

Options are given under the New York law, the employer being permitted to insure in a State-administered fund, or in an authorized corporation or association, or to maintain self-insurance, so called, by furnishing satisfactory proof to the State commission of his financial ability to make such payments as might be anticipated in the conduct of his business. In the last-named case, the commission may, in its discretion, require the employer to deposit securities of a kind prescribed by the statute, in an amount to be determined by the commission. Assuming that the method of self-insurance would be open to all employers on reasonable terms, it was held that the other modes of insurance might constitutionally be prescribed as optional alternatives, the rights of the employers not being thus interfered with; while, assuming that the State commission would be diligent in requiring the employer either to furnish satisfactory proof of his ability, or to write insurance in suitable companies, the employee could not be regarded as injuriously affected in a constitutional sense by the granting of options to the employer. (New York Central Co. v. White, 243 U. S. 188; 37 Sup. Ct. 247.)

While some States offer a variety of options, even specifically stating, as in Michigan, that the purpose is to make a test of the different forms so as to discover which is preferable, there has been a continued effort on the part of the Industrial Commission of Ohio to secure to the State fund a monopoly of compensation insurance. A strong alignment of the interested parties was made, the stock insurance companies offering vigorous opposition to such a movement. The constitutionality of various provisions of the State law was challenged, section 22 (sec. 1465-69) being one of the sections particularly called in question. This section required every employer of five or more workmen, unless a self-insurer approved by the commission, to make premium contributions to the State fund; self-insurers, furthermore, were obliged to contribute to a surplus fund for the purpose of forming a guaranty fund, and might also be required to give security or bond to guarantee the payment of their obligation. Section 54 (sec. 1465-101), among other provisions, declared void all contracts or agreements made by an employer to indemnify him against loss or damage occasioned by the willful act of the employer or of his agents, or their failure to observe any lawful requirement for the safety of employees. The first of these sections was declared constitutional, while the latter was said to permit the writing of compensation insurance for injuries due to negligence other than those inflicted by willful acts or the failure to observe safety laws. (State v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation, 116 N. E. 513.) This decision clearly left to the insurance companies

the power to write policies not conflicting with the terms of the law as construed by the court.

A case in which the opinion was rendered a few months later than the foregoing involved the validity of the provisions of the act authorizing self-insurance, inasmuch as it was only self-insurers who were taking insurance in the stock companies, the action being an attempt to procure a judicial ruling which would entirely exclude stock companies from the State. In this case (State v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 117 N. E. 232), it developed that the company was insuring the so-called self-insurers, but only in accordance with the provisions of section 54, conforming to the decision of the court already noted. In the present instance the court declined to consider the wisdom or unwisdom of the policies involved, but held that as the commission which had charge of the State fund must also exercise duties of discretion and judgment as to the competency of employers to become self-insurers, there was no inequality before the law, and no substantial favor gained by either employer or employee. Judicial construction, therefore, was not found to meet the end of preventing the operation of stock companies in the State, and an amendment, approved March 29, 1917, exempted from premium contributions to the State fund only those persons who were regarded as competent self-insurers " and who do not desire to insure the payment thereof or indemnify themselves against loss sustained by the direct payment thereof." This amendment would appear to terminate absolutely the activities of stock companies in the State, since only those who are self-insurers in the strictest sense are exempted from contributions to the State fund.

INSURANCE BUSINESS TRANSACTED.

The table on page 95 shows the amount of business transacted by casualty companies, stock and mutual, and by the State funds providing compensation insurance. It will be observed that in most of the States having State funds there is also the privilege of writing insurance in approved companies, the exceptions being Nevada (except in 1914), Ohio (since 1917), Oregon, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

It must be kept in mind that these figures represent only the actual transactions for the year, and do not show the losses incurred nor the premiums earned during the year. They are only suggestive, therefore, and conclusions can be drawn only in a very limited degree as to the actual relationship between the premiums written and the actual liabilities incurred by the insurers; though as the experience accumulates, the correlation between payments and premiums will

naturally become fixed to a degree not possible this early in the history of the business.

It is also too soon to draw inferences from the experience developed in the two classes of insurance, though in the case of New York there is a marked relative increase in the operations of the State fund; while in Michigan there was a marked decrease in the third year, though a similar decrease appears in the insurance written by stock companies, suggesting an industrial depression rather than a choice of the one type of insurance as against the other. The table follows:

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE (CASUALTY, SURETY, AND MISCELLANEOUS COMPANIES AND STATE FUNDS), 1913 TO 1916, BY STATES.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
« السابقةمتابعة »