IOWA. EltPLOYERS' LIABILITY COMMISSION. ajortiFll ICaw i>rl|0nl ffiibrara •OWf], Employer's Liability Commission \^N KFI4541.A84 Cornell University Library MalqriW. and, minority,, re^ort^^^ '"7924'' '024''766 671 MAJORITY AND MINORITY REPORTS AND BILLS MEMBERS OF COMMISSION John T. Ci-Aekson, Chairman, Albia. W. "W. Baldwin, Burlington. P. S. Billings, Valley Junction. J. 0. Staly, Des Moines. J. L. Stevens, Boone. Welker Given, Secretary. 4G355 DES MOINES KMOHY H. EirsLISH, STATE PEINTEE 1912 The majority and minority reports of the special Employers' Liability Commission of the State of Iowa together with the bills respectively recommended are printed herewith but without the shorthand report of public hearings and the twenty-three ap- pendices attached to the original report as transmitted to the members elect of the 35th General Assembly, November 15, 1912. REPORT OP E.^IPLOYERS' LIABILITY AND WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COMMISSION FOR THE STATE OF IOWA. To His Excellency the Gomrnor of Iowa and Members of the General Asscmblij of the State of Iowa: Your Commission appointed by the Governor under and by virtue of Cliap. 205, Acts of the Slth General Assembly authorizing an investigation to be made and if deemed advisable to report a plan and recommend a bill to provide compensation for injuries sustained by employes arising out of and in course of employ- ments, respectfully submits its report as follows: CONDITIONS WHICH CAUSED THE INVESTIGATION. The members of thei 34th General Assembly recognizing the fact that the common law and statutory remedies are not adequate, or just either to employers or employes and that our industries of the state are a necessity and the hazards of employment great and annually increasing, and as the industries increase likewise the haziard and burdens are correspondingly increased upon the em- ploye to such an extent that the conscience of our people has been touched to a marked extent, and also to a knowledge that employers of labor are in constant menace from the prosecution of cases, which cost great waste of energy, time and money (much of which does not reach those to whom it properly belongs), and that' many of the states are engaged in the investigation of this all important problem, deemed it advisable and necessary that Iowa should like- wise join the ranks with a view of establishing a rule of law which would more nearly do justice to employers, emploj^es and the consuming public. With that end in view the General As- sembly authorized the Governor to appoint a commission of five members consisting of two employers, two employes and one dis- interested person. DUTY OF COMMISSION. The duty devolved upon the commission by virtue of said act required it to investigate the problem of industrial accidents, especially the .condition of the law of liability for iijjuries or 4 EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY COMMISSION. death suffiered in the course of industrial employment in this state and other states and inquire into the most equitable and effectual method of providing compensation for losses suffered, and prepare their reports on or before the 15th day of September, 1912, and re- port its conclusions with a draft of such bill or bills, as may be deemed appropriate, to the Governor, who shall at once publish said report and draft of bill. APPOINTMENT OP COMMISSION. Pursuant to the provisions of said act, the Governor appointed as members of the commission, John T. Clarkson of Albia, W. "W. Baldwin of Burlington, J. L. Stevens of Boone, P. S. Billings of Valley Junction and John O.'Staly of Des Moines, who on the 19th day of June, 1911, met and organized, elected John T. Clark- son as chairman of the commission and thereafter selected "Welker Given as Secretary and agreed upon general plans to be followed in making the proper investigation of the conditions in this State as well as other states and the law now in force, especially the constitutional questions involved. INVESTIGATION. The members of the commission have devoted their energies in- vestigating the legal phases relative to the constitutionality of the Act contemplated and also the laws now in force in foreign coun- tries as well as the laws enacted by the several states of this country. The members met with the Commissions of like kind from other states at a meeting held in Chicago in October, 1911, and in ad- dition thereto some of the members of the commission have visited other states to observe the operation of the laws there in force as well a:s the plans of proceedure of the respective commissions, notably those of Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio, Illinois and Wisconsin. We have availed ourselves of the benefits of the in- vestigation made as reported by commissions of other states and reports made by the foreign governments and such facts as were available in our own state. OUTLINE OF LAWS NOW IN FORCE FOE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION. Three general plans seem to have been followed both by foreign countries and some of the states in this country ; namely, the Eng- lish, German and Norwegian. ENGLISH PLAN. In the plan adopted by the English Government by an act of Parliament a fixed schedule of compensation was provided EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY COMMISSION 5 for all injuries sustained by an employe, payable to the injured party, and if death lensued to the dependent, where the injury oc- curred in the course of the employment. No provision was made whatever for insurance, leaving it optional with the employer whether he would purchase indemnity insurance or carry the risks himself. It is claimed by the opponents of this plan that an injustice would be done the employe in that in many cases the employer be- comes insolvent and in that way the very purpose and benefit of the law as intended is not realized in behalf of the employ or dependent as the ease may be, and it is further claimed that where the employer is conducting a business with a large amount of borrowed capital and the property is mortgaged to secure the payment thereof, the rights and benefits accruing to injured em- ployes or dependents would be necessarily subject to the mortgage lien and thereby thwart the very intents and purposes of the law, namely: to assure injured employes and dependents certain com- pensation for injuries received arising out of land in the course of employment. This it is claimed is more particularly true in a state or country where the element of development is strong and the industries growing in magnitude and branching out in the various kindred lines of general business. As a further ob- jection to the English plan, it is claimed, that the industries of England are old and well established, hence a law fixing liability without providing for or requiring insurance can be successfully operated as each industry under ordinary conditions is financially able to fully protect all parties interested and only needs indemnity insurance to protect the business in case of catastrophe and that can and generally is provided for by requiring the insurance com- pany to meet the loss when beyond a fixed amount in any one casualty, hence the premium rate would not be one of great ex- pense. In addition thereto, it is claimed by the opponents of the English plan that it would necessarily leave much if not the major portion of disagreements to be determined by the courts and liti- gation being one of the factors desirable to avoid as far as may be, the English plan falls short of meeting the requirements, which with the cost thereof together with the added cost where indemnity insurance was carried will ultimately overburden the industries, at least to such extent as to very seriously hamper the development thereof. The cost of insurance being accentuated by reason of in- demnity companies maintaining a corps of solicitors to get the business together with the profits. 6 EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY COMMISSION. GERMAN PIjAN. ilany of those who oppose the English plan espouse that which , is known as the German plan modified to suit our. conditions and . constitutional requirements, the general outlines thereof being that the injured employe or dependents shall receive certain and fixed: compensation for all injuries sustained arising out of and in course of the employment, a schedule of compensation being fixed by statutory enactments and payment thereof secured by a fund . created from contributions made by the employers according to, the premium rates fixed, the , employers ' association having charge -■ of the funds and distribution thereof in payment of claims to those entitled thereto.. NORWAY PLAN. Some oppose both the English and the German plan and favor the plan adopted in Norway wherein the statutory enactments pro- vide that compensation shall be paid to all injured employes or their dependents, when death ensues, when the injury was sustained arising out of and in course of the employment, payment thereof to be made from a fund created in the nature of a tax upon each industry according to the hazards of the employment and experience, of the individual ris-k, the fund and distribution thereof being under , the control of a commission appointed by the government. Those who favor the English or the German plan contend and insist tl^at the Norway plan is seriously defective and fundamentally wrong . as applicable to our government for the reason that it savors of, politics and the strong tendency would be that those in charge of' the funds in the payment of claims would often times be influenced by the desire to cater to the employes who would be enabled to,; deliver, when nieeded, the greater number, of votes .and that ulti- mately the^ plan would grow into one great, gigantic political ma- chine and thwart one of the fundamentals of the proposed change, , namely : that of th§ desire to bring about a more equitable distri-, bution of the burdens growing out of modem industry.. To the members of the conunission the indictment against the- Norway plan appears to be reasonable and one which can be sup-, ported when -we examine the experieaiee of this and other states; . where heads of departments are looked upon and generally. regarded-, as a political .adjunct utilized for the purpose of aiding the po- litical party .in power.. In maJdng this statement memhers of the, commission do not desire to be understood as making an attack;. EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY COMMISSION 7 upon the appointive powers as provided by statute of this state as the fact is recognized by ©very one who has given the matter much consideration that the person empowered to make appointments would often times be greatly relieved of the unpleasant duty because of the fact that applicants at times forced appointing power to yield when good judgment dictated the contrary but with all that it can be said of Iowa, that we have been reasonably free from the worst effects of the system as compared to that of many of our sister states, yet those who have been in close touch with the system re- gard it as a dangerous one to fasten upon a new order of things bet'^een employer and employe. workmen's compensation laws op our state. New York was the first of any of the states to attempt a change from the old system of employers' liability under the rules fixed by the common law to the new where the industries shall carry the bur- den, following the English' plan. The statute applied to such in- dustries as were regarded extra hazardous employments but was declared unconstitutional upon the ground that it deprived the em- . ployer of property without due process of law. New Jersey enacted a statute similar to the New York plan, that is followed what is generally termed the English plan but to avoid the constitutional question invoked and applied by the New York court enacted what is termed an optional plan, that is, each em- ployer is presumed to have elected to pay compensation for injuries sustained by the employes while in the course of their employment until written notice shall have been given rejecting the plan and in that event the employer is deprived of the common law defenses known .as the defenses of assumed risk, contributory negligence and the fellow servant doctrine. No provision was made for insurance leaving it optional with the employer whether he will or not carry indemnity insurance. A permanent commission was appointed by the Governor having duties to do with the law which anei little if any more than advisory in their character and to collect data to enable them to report to the legislature from time to time wherein the law may be strengthened and improved. The legislature of Illinois enacted a statute in its general terms similar to that of New Jersey but failed to provide for a permanent commission. It. is confidently beHeved and hoped by employers and employes of Illinois that the next General Assembly will provide for a permanent commission conferring broad powers and duties so 8 EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY COMMISSION as to provide for efficient enf oreemient of the law and aid in bring- ing about a better solution of the plan proposed and sought to have established. The plan adopted by Wisconsin in its general terms is fashioned after the New Jersey plan but provided for the appointment of a permanent commission with broad powers and duties to be per- formed, including all of the duties performed theretofore by the Commissioner of Labor in reference to accident prevention land as to which we will have more to say when we deal with the problem of accident prevention and, which we desire to submit to the careful consideration of the members of the 35th General Assembly as we regard the Wisconsin law in reference to accident prevention, one of the best, if not the best' solution to thie problem of accident prevention. The state of Michigan adopted a plan in its general terms similar to that of New Jersey, Wisconsin and Illinois but additional pro- vision is made requiring the employers coming under the plan to carry either stock company indemnity insurance or insurance of like kind in a mutual company of five or more em^^loyers who may join in contributing to a fund to be administered by the insurance department out of which compensation will be paid the injured employe. The temporary commission appointed by the Governor of Massa- chusetts recommended the enactment of a plan fashioned after the German system except that the plan was known as the elective plan similar to that of New Jersey and except that the employer does not come under the new plan unless a notice in writing be given but if the employer fails to give a written notice electing to come under the plan he is deprived of the common law defenses in an action brought by an employe to recover damages for injuries re- ceived growing out of the employment and in addition thereto the plan recommended by the temporary commission provided that every employer who comes under the new plan thereby becomes a member of the employers' insurance association to which contribu- tion would be required to be made from time to time according to the rates to be fixed' by the lemployers' insurance association and approved by the insurance department and out of the fund created, compensation would be paid to the employes who sustained injury arising out of and in course of their lemployment. The General Assembly did not follow the recommendations of the temporary commission but left it optional with the employer EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY COMMISSION 9 whether he would take out indemnity insurance in a stock company or become a member of the employers' insurance association. It is claimed by many that the General Assembly erred in taking that position for the reason that the stock companies would seek the cream of the risks, leaving to the employers' insurance association the greater number of the most undesirable ones and in addition thereto reduce the number of patrons of the employers' insurance association to the point which would not enable them to obtain and apply the rale of average, it being a recognized lestablished prin- ciple of insurance that unless you can obtain a sufficient number of employers having a sufficient number of employes, reaching to such •number as will enable the making of estimate of rate upon a good general experience, that you cannot obtain a reas&nable and satis- factory safe average to determine an equitable rate reasonably safe to meet the requirements without overburdening the industries com- ing within the limited scope. In talking with many interested parties in Massachusetts it was claimed that the change as indicated from that as recommended by the temporaiy commission would not have been made but for the strong influenae brought to bear over the Massachusetts Assembly by thie indemnity insurance companies doing business in the state of Massachusetts. Insurance companies have claimed that the charge cannot be supported from the facts that the interest which they have taken in the matter was to fairly place the proposition before the members of the General Assembly from a practical stand- point and the result thereof was the members of the Massachusetts Assembly were convinced of the correctness of the position taken by the insurance companies and thereby enacted a statute by the terms of which employers may purchase indemnity insurance from what- ever source they may deem desirable. It is proper, however, to say in connection therewith that all insurance rates of all companies must first he submitted to the insurance department of the state of Massachusetts and they must be approved before being enforced and in that way it is claimed that it assures to the employer rea- sonable rates and at the same time insures to the employe ade- quate rates to pay compensation, but it does not eliminate the det- rimental phase of the proposition that the insurance companies support a retinue of insurance solicitors, adjusters and the ele- ment of profit thereof, duplicating many times over the same field of endeavor. 10 EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY COMMISSION The rates now in force in Massachusetts made by the employ- ers' insurance association and approved by the insurance com- missioners are slightly lower than those offered by the stock com- panies, but the stock company people claim, which seems to be supported by the, facts, that in the event of a catastrophe the em- ployers' insurance association will not biei enabled to protect the employer or employe for the reason that iio provision whatever is made for reserve fund to take care of such conditions. Hence, in the event of such an occurrence, many employers now in the em- ployers' insurance association in order to avoid special assessment to meet the condition will drop out of the mutual and take up the stock company indemnity and in that event, endless litigation will' result therefrom, thereby bringing discredit upon the employers' mutual association and in all probability its disruption with dis- astrous results to injured employes who have established claims. The states of Washington and Ohio have enacted plans fashioned more nearly after the Norway system though the plans in Ohio and Washington differ from .each other in many material respects. The Washington plan is compulsoiy,that is, the employers have no election but are required to pay into the state fund stipulated ainounts according to the rates fixed by statute. The fund is ad- ministered by thei conunission, payments are made out of the fund by' the commission to all of the employes entitled thereto. The Ohio plan is elective, that is, the employer may elect whether he will or will not come Under the' new law, but if he fails to come under the new law he is deprived of the common law defenses. When the employer comes under the plan he is required to pay into a gen- eral fund a fixed amount in accordance with the premium rates fixed by the commission, which are. supposed to be made according to the hazard -of the industry and the experience of the individual risk. This, it is claimed by the oppone'nts of the plan, is one of the most dangerous terms thereof, in that the commission being Clothed with arbitrary and plenary powers are thereby enabled to very serious'ly discriminate between employers engaged in the same line-of indus- tries and-in addition thereto oftentimes being influenced out of sym- pathy to permit an employs to impose upon the cominission to ob- j;ain from it, compensation at times when not, fairly entitled- thereto. And it, is, claimed that this is especially true, where- the claims are for smaJl amounts, for the. reason that it would oftentimes cost more to investigate the claim carefully and fully than it would to p^y the same in full, and, therefore, in order to avoid the burden of in- EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY COMMISSION 11 vestigation, the commission would be tempted to yield thereto and pay the claim as made in order to close the docket In that parficular case. The chairman of the commission had the benefit oS studying the Ohio commission 's work at close range and is free' to say in due course of time when the claims are numerous and tlie work of the commission is such as it surely will be that there is someilierit in what is claimed by those who are opposed to the Ohio plail, iot be- cause of the persons who compose the commission but the i^laii" which will in time become cumbersome. ' ■'" •'' It would be a physical impossibility for a commis'sabn composed of three members to givei much if any consideration to each claim made by the injured employe. This will perhaps not be true until the time arrives when it doubtless will that the employers represent- ing the major per cent of the employers' in the state will come under the law and the only relief therefore must come by dividing the state into districts and creating a commission for each district, or supply the commission of three members as now in force with power to ap- point heads of departments to whom the claim shall be referred ac- cording to the classification of the head of the department col- lecting the evidence to determine the merits and then submit to the commission for final approval. It would seem, and it is claimed, that a system of that character would become exceeding- ly autocratic, and this, together with the temptation to get in politics and exercise an infiuence over the medium to leniency in the payment would be a dangerous system to establish and would ultimately grow to such an extent as to cause the employ- ers to revolt and demand repeal of the law. While the Wash- ington plan is to. get away from the arbitrary power of the com- mission to fix rates, yet the premium rates having been fixed by statute are therel:y arbitrary, hence impracticable for that con- ditions will change from time to time, but the premium rates can- not be readjusted accordingly. The statement made in reference to the Ohio and Washing- ton plan, which is akin to the Norway plan, does not meet the full approval of all the members of the commission, at least one member feels that opponents to this plan are over apprehensive of the dangers mentioned and feels that ultimately they will work out to the best interests of all concerned. The plans are sometimes referred to as state insurance, but as a matter of fact are not state insurance, as the premiums are paid by the employer yet the state has the exclusive administration of the fund while 12 EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY COMMISSION under the plan akin to the Gnerman system the employers have the administration of the funds supervised by the commission who represent the state. As before stated, the New York law was declared unconstitu- tional, while, on the other hand, the Washington law being com- pulsory the supreme court of that state in a very lengthy and well considered opinion held that it does not infringe on the provi- sions of the constitution. Thie supreme courts of Massachusetts, New Jersej'^, Wisconsin and Ohio have declared the laws of those states which lare elective plans, not to have infringed upon the constitution of the respective states. In the case of Massachusetts the matter was submitted to that court by the General Assembly. The law of that state provides that the legislature may submit any question involving the constitutionality of a proposed act to the supreme court for their opinion as to whether or not the proposed measure will infringe upon the provisions of the constitution. Upon the question being submitted, the supreme court of Massa- chusetts held that the proposed measure would not conflict with the constitution of that state. In other states, namely, New Jersey, Ohio and Wisconsin thei question of constitutionality was de- termined in litigated cases, and that is true of the state of Washing- ton. We have not undertaken to go into details of the several laws referred to but only a general outline as to several leading plans that have received the greater attention of the students of the proposed change from the old doctrine of ismployers' liability to the new one of workmen's compensation. The one dominat- ing feature chanacteristic of the several plans is that compensa- tion shall be paid for all injuries sustained while in line of duty which arise out of and in course of thle employments, regardless of fault, except that compensation is not allowed when the in- jury is the result of the wilful act upon the part of the injured party, whereas under the old law all recoveries were forbidden unless the employe could show the employer to have been at fault, in other words guilty of negligence. To avoid the results of the decision of the New York courts the states of Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio and Wisconsin adopted what is known as the elective plan. That is the employer elects to stay or come under the new law and pay the compensation pro- (vided or take his chances under the common law without the bene- fit of the common law defenses known as contributory negligence, EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY COMMISSION 13 fellow servant and assumed risk. The courts of these states hold that a law following that plan is constitutional. The states of Illinois, Kansas, California, Michigan and some others have adopted the elective plan. Hence with one court holding the compulsory plan unconstitutional, and but one sustaining the plan, while the courts of four states, namely, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio and Wisconsin, having sustained the elective plan and none to the contrary, it was deemed advisable by the commission to adopt that plan which at this time is fully sustained by authority and await future developments as regards the advisability of ladopting what is known as the compulsory plan. LAW IN POECE IN THIS STATE. The rule of law in force in this state generally termed em- ployers' liability at common law, modified in certain cases by statute, and is based upon the requirements of the injured party to show that his employer was negligent before recovery can be had, that is to say the burden of proof rests upon the injured party and, if death! ensues, upon his legal representatives, to show that the employer failed to meet or neglected to do or perform some duties imposed by law or did some act prohibited by law and that inj,ury to the employe was the result thereof, or as it is sometimes said that the employer neglected to exercise reason- able care and caution to furnish the employe a reasonably safe place in which to work. Among some of the duties which are im- posed upon the employer is that of exiercising reasonable care and caution to furnish the employe a reasonably safe place to work and to exercise reasonable care and caution to keep such place in a rieiasonably safe condition, but this rule does not apply where the workman is engaged in a line of employment where the working place from the nature of the work is changing from time to time. In such case the employer is under no duty to the employe to furnish a reasonably safe place to work and the hazards of such work are deemed incident to the employment and assumed by the workman. In addition thereto the duty is imposed upon the employer to exercise reasonable care and caution to furnish the employe with reasonably safe tools and appliances with which to work and to exercise reasonable oarie and caution in selecting reasonably competent employes to perform the work, and if the employer fails in the performance of any or all of the foregoing duties and the employe sustains an injury as the result thereof 14 EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY COMMISSION he is entitled to recover for the damage sustained providing that he has shown by the greater weight of the evidence that he himself, the injured party, was fr&e from negligence. If, how- ever, the injury was the result of negligence upon the part of a co-employe after the employer had exercised reasonable care in selecting the employe, then the injured employe cannot recover. The rules of contributory negligence apply and will bar recov- ery when the injured party is shown to have been negligent in any degree, and that not withstanding that his employer may have been negligent, and where he is barred from recovery be- cause of negligence of a co-employe the doctrine of the fellow servant rule applies, sometimes called the co-employe doctrine. The fact that the employe who sustains an injury in the course of his employment cannot recover damages until he has shown fault upon the part of the employer by the greater weight or prepon- derence of the testimony necessarily will bar recovery if the in- jury was produced by conditions which the employer could not have prevented in the exercise of reasonable care and caution in the business, and the injury sustained by the employe produced by conditions that are sometimes termed unavoidable, and they are deemed unavoidable when the employer has performed all the duties imposed by law, and in that case the burden falls upon the employe and is • regarded as one of the risks or the hazard incident to his employment and no recovery will be allowied there- for. This rule of law is known to the legal profession as the doc- trine of assumed risk. Some text writers and courts have made a subdivision and say that there are two divisions to the rule of assumed risks, one being such risks as are incident to the employ- ment, the other such risks as grow out of the negligence of the employer when the employe had knowledge thereof and appre- ciated the danger and continued in the performance of the work, but as to the latter phasie of this question the Thirty-third Gen- eral Assembly by statutory enactment modified that rule by pro- viding that where the fact is shown that the employer was negli- gent in the duties imposed and that the employe continued in the performance of the work, even though he may have had knowl- edge of the negligence of the employer, the. employe shall not be deemed to have assumed the risk unless the danger is • such and imminent and so apparent that a reasonably prudent person would not have continued in the performance of the work. EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY COMMISSION 15 The law of this state which applies where injury is sustained by employes while in line of duty, in general terms, may be said to be first that the employe is entitled to recover when he has shown that his employer was negligent and that he himself was free from negligence and that the injury was not the result of the neglect of a co-employe, but if the employers' negligence con- curred with the negligence of the co-employe and the negligence of the employer was the proximate cause of the injury, then the employe will be entitled to recover. Said in another way the employe cannot recover if he has failed to show by the greater weight or the preponderance of the testimony that his employ- er was negligent in some duty imposed by law and if he fails to show by the greater weight or the preponderance of the tes timony that he himself, the employe, was free from negligsnee, hence it will be seen that where he is required to show that the employer was negligent, he must necessarily show by competent testimony that the injured party was free from negligence and that the injury sustained was not the result of the negligence of a eo-employe and that it was not the reisult of a condition com- ing within the doctrine of an assumed risk. The rule of law in this state applicable to personal injury cases has been modified by statute in so far as it applies to a corporation operating a railway. Section 2071 Supplement to the CJode, 1907, provides "that every corporation operating a rail- way shall be liable for damages sustained by any person, includ- ing employes of said corporation, in consequence of the negligence of the agents or bj- any mismanagement of the engineers, or any other employes thereof when such wrongs are in any manner connected with the use mid operation of any railway." This in effect modifies the fellow-servant rule so far as applicable to rail- ways and makes the corporation liabla if the injury occurs in the operation of the train even though the negligence be that of fel- low-servant. The rule of contributory negligence in so far as it applies to railroads is modified by Chapter 124 Acts of the Thirty-third General Assembly, which pro^ddes "that contributory negligence of the employe shall not bar recovery, but the damages shall be diminished by the jury in proportipn to the amount of negligence attributable to such employe." This in effect substitutes what is termed by the legal profession as comparative negligence for that of contributory negligence'. The statute further modifies the rule 16 EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY COMMISSION of contributory negligence to the extent that "where an employe receives an injury and death ensues as a result thereof by rea- son of the railroad company's violation of any statute enacted requiring safety devices for the safety of the employes, that the injured party shall not be deemed to have been guilty of con- tributory negligence, nor that he assumed the risks of his em- ployment. ' ' The application of these rules of law which govern employers and employes have become known to the profession and laymen as the doctrine of negligence, contributory negligence, fellow serv- ant rule, and assumed risks land are the four defenses which domi- nate every litigated case where the employe seeks to recover from his employer for injuries sustained while in line of duty and have been the subject of much criticism. The investigators have had in mind the legal principles now in force and the conditions and remedies sought to be attained, and the com mission when organized set about to study the decisions of the several courts applicable to the new order of things and to study the available statistics gathered by the other states as shown by their reports. Nearly all of the states in a greater or less degree have taken up the problem with the view of solution, hence we find the information is voluminous and the subject has been approached from so many different angles and compli- cated with the sumounding conditions and legal principles of long years standing making the investigation laborious and the subject one of difSculty. The commission was confronted with the deplorable fact that our state has been denelict in collecting proper data which would enable one to determine the true situation in reference to the employe's injury in the several industries and in line of duty and their earnings at the time of injury and the length of time the disability continued or if death ensued of dependents left sur- viving, all of which is neoessary and essential to enable one to determine what the probable cost would b(e under the proposed change if a workmen's law be enacted, as compared to the cost resulting friom the application of the rules of law now in force. There is a great loss often times termed an economic loss under the present system, and employers within recent years have be- come as much dissatisfied with this antiquated system as the employe. In a large degree it may be said that the only differ- ence between "the employer and the employe as respects their ob- EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY COMMISSION 11 jections to the present system is that the employe suffiers the pain and anguish, while the employer is reasonably free therefrom. From the standpoint of the employer it can be said that his business and all of his earnings and investments are undei^ con- stant menace and liable to be swept away, only awaiting a catastrophe that is likely to occur that will subject him to a series of law suits. In addition thereto when an injury occurs to an employe, the result is brought about that invariably the employes line up on one side and the employers and officials on the other, and it needs no stretch of the imagination to appreciate that un- der such conditions our courts have not been free from per- jured testimioaiy and has given rise to the ambulance chaser, so- called, the lawyer who makes a specialty of looking up the per- sonal injury cases and makes his presence felt at the bedside of the injured party within a short time after the injury occurs, and in many cases the representative of the employer and the personal injurj' lawyer are in a mad race to determine who shall first reach the injured party bo secure a statement and lay the foundation for a law suit or defense thereof, as the case may be. That the personal injury lawyer is an inevitable result of the con- ditions cannot be denied, and in an overwhelming number of in- stances the injured employe is without means to protect himself or enforce his legal rights, hence but for the contingent fee law- yer who will take the case on la par cent the careless and indif- ferent employer could revel in the satisfaction that the injured party was unable to enforce a just claim growing out of the negligence of his employer. So that the attacks made upon the system in force are amply justified by the records and the ef- fect has been that many of the foremost men of the country and in each state are putting forth their best efforts to fashion a system that will at least wipe away the incongruous part of the antiquateiJ methods that are annually having the effect of widening the treaeh between the employer and the employe. While the commission have been imable to obtain satisfactory data relative to personal injuries of employes within this state we have prepared all that has been available and attached the same to this report as shedding some general light upon the sev- eral phases of the proposition, and we earnestly urge the General Assembly to carefully study the tables and statistics compiled by our secretary, believing that it will aid the members of the Geii- 3 j-18 EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY COMMISSION ,eral Assembly to a better undeustanding of the different phases of the bill which we herewith present and recommend passage. In connection therewith we would suggest that as far as reason- ably practicable the members of the Gieneral Assembly review the reports of other states, especially those of New York, Illinois, "Wis- *consin, Minnesota, New Jersey and Massachusetts as being sub- iStantially typical of our own state. The Commissions of those states, especially that of New York, were better prepared than ourselves to go into the details necessary to a full understanding of the subject, better prepared because in the state of New York .employers have b'een required for many years to report in de- tail each and every injury sustained by an employe. ACCIDENT PREVENTION. Before explaining the provisions of the bill, we herewith pre- sent and recommend for passage, we desire to invite the especial .attention of the members of the General Assembly to accident prevention. If the General Assembly will provide efficient and adequate means for the enforcement of laws relating to accident prevention, injuries to employes in this state can be reduced, in a yery conservative estimate, 50 per cent, and thereby very mate- irially reduce the cost of any new system for compensation. To the workmen, accident prevention is of greater importance than that of the workmen's compensation and the two logically should I go hand in hand. The Commission recommends that the office of Labor Commis- sioner be abolished and that the duties mow imposed by law upon the Labor Commissioner be transferred to the Industrial Com- ,mission, provided for in the proposed bill, and that the law re- lating to safety devices be very materially strengthened and as a .means of procedure we recommend the method employed by the Wisconsin Industrial Commission, wherein the commission of Wis- consin appointed a committee of thirty in number consisting of employers, who in turn select experts and superintendents .engaged in several industries, who formulated rules and regu- ,Iations for safety devices for the several industries and reported to the committee of thirty, who in turn and in conjunction with jthe experts prepared thorough and comprehensive rules and reg- .ulations for accident prevention. The committee of thirty then reported to the Industrial Commission, and with the employers' Committee and their experts, together with experts selected by the EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY COMMISSION 19 commission, carefully reviewed that which had been prepared by the committee appointed by the Commission and which was Ulti- mately adopted and approved by the Commission, the result being that the Industrial Commission and the employers have co-op- erated in one heroic struggle to eliminate as far as may be, in- dustrial accidents, and when an injury is sustained by an em- ploye report is immediately made to the Commission. The state inspector is immediately or as soon as possible thereafter sent to investig'ate the real cause of the injury, and the findings, together with the Commission's conclusions, are sent to all the employers engaged in that line , of business' with such suggestions as are deemed advisable by the Ckjnmiission, suggesting means and meth- ods whereby injuries from that source may be avoided with the ultimate result, as claimed by the Industrial Commission of Wisconsin, that in recent years the injuries of that state have been reduoed fully 50 per cent. With this example before us the Conunission deems it safe to say that Iowa can take up the wori in the same manner as Wisconsin and with their experience before us improve thereion and thereby reduce the injuries to employes and save a great part of the expense that otherwise would be in- curred under the compensation act. What we have said regard- ing accident prevention we do not want to be understood as re- flecting upon the department of labor of this state. It has ac- complished much good and doubtless could and would have ac- complished much more if furnished adequate and sufficient in- spectors to cover the ground, but it is extremiely absurd to expect much if any beneficial results with two factory inspectors to' cover the entire state of Iowa, in other words, with lover 125,000 employes employed in the several industries in this state engaged in diversified employments under diversified conditions and witB but two men to cover the ground of inspection, having something over five thousand industries to visit, examine and fully inspect with a view to conserving human life and limb, place our state id such position to merit just criticism. Employers are awaking td the fact that we are sadly in need of same remedial legislatioii which will lenable them to co-operate with the state in evolving some systematic plan whereby much of the disastrous results cad be eliminated from their business and make one of the valuabW assets of the business, the saving of human life and limb. If w« have already strengthened the desire to reduce the destriiction of human life and reduce the number of maimed and wounded eri'