About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

17 Cornell L. Q. 604 (1931-1932)
Study of Comparative Negligence

handle is hein.journals/clqv17 and id is 628 raw text is: A STUDY OF COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE* A. CHALMERS MOLE AND LYMAN P. WILSONt PART II V. VARIOUS STATE RULES ALLEVIATING THE HARSHNESS Op THE COMMON-LAw RULE OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE a. Workmen's Compensation Acts In the vast field of master and servant the common-law rule of contributory negligence proved too harsh. The common law govern- ing the remedy of workmen against employers for injuries received in the course of employment proved unsatisfactory in its results and inconsistent with modern conditions. The remedy of the workman was slow and inadequate; little of the cost to the employer reached the workman, and that little at large expense to the public.'4' Labor- ers clamored for legislation which would insure recovery without necessitating that they prove negligence on the part of employers or disprove negligence on their part.'4 In i88o, England commenced to modify her law as to liability to employees for injuries,43 and within a short time virtually all of the countries of Europe and the provinces *Copyright, 1932, by A. Chalmers Mole and Lyman P. Wilson. Part I of this article appeared in the April, 1932 issue of THE CORNELL LAW QUARTERLY. tThe authors are, respectively, a third year student and a Professor of Law in the Cornell Law School. 14Theory: IDAHo CoMP. STAT. (i919) § 6214; Witte, Theory of Workmen's Compensation (1930) 20 AM. LAB. LEG. REV. 411; New York Cent. R. R. v. White, 243 U. S. 188, 37 Sup. Ct. 247, ANN. CAs. 1917 D 629, L. R. A. 1917D x; Ives v. So. Buffalo Ry., 2o N. Y. 271, 94 N. E. 431, ANN. CAS. 1912B 156, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 162, rev'g i4o App. Div. 921, 125 N. Y. Supp. 1125 (4th Dept. 1911). 14Jeremiah Smith, (1914) 27 H-Av. L. REV. 235, 240, commenting on the English Workmen's Compensation Act of 1897: The act takes the new line of creating a duty on the part of employers to compensate workmen for accidental damage irrespective of any fault on the part of the employees or their fellow- servants. There is no need to prove any negligence of employers; and the work- man loses his right by nothing short of his own serious and willful misconduct being the cause of the accident. The act covers personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment. Sometimes the statute is defended on the ground that it practically divides the loss between workman and employer. '4EMPLOYERs' LIABILITy AcT (I880) 43 and 44 VICT., c. 42, construed in Gibbs v. Gt. Western Ry., (1884) 12 Q. B. D. 208; infra note 157 for comments on English Act of 1897, 6o and 6i VICT., c. 37; EMPLOYERS' LiAarLiTY AcT (iqo6), 6 EDw. 7, c. 58; but cf. history as set out in i IDAHo L. J. 56.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most