^. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) i/^ '^' f4^\^ I I.I 11.25 l^|18 |2j5 !Sf 144 '' 12.2 yuu llllim 1.4 mil 1.6 — 6" J ; Photographic Sciences Corporailion 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 \ ' CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHIVI/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microfsproductlons / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checlted below. □ D D D D D D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ Couverture endommag6e Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurde et/ou pelliculde I I Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque I I Coloured maps/ Cartes gdographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autro que bleue ou noire) j I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Relid avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re liure serr6e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intdrieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas dt6 filmdes. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppldmentaires: L'institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la nidthode normale de filmage sont indiquds ci-dessous. □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur n Pages damaged/ Pages endommagdes □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurdes et/ou pellicul6es □ Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages d6co!or6es, tachetdes ou piqudes I I Pages detached/ D D Pages ddtach^es Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of prir Quality indgale de I'impression Includes supplementary materii Comprend du materiel supplementaire I I Showthrough/ I I Quality of print varies/ I I Includes supplementary material/ Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6X6 filmdes d nouveau de faqon d obtenir la meilleure image p'^ssible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmd au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X 1 1 V 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X laire i details |ues du it modifier iger une B filmage 1/ udes The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Bibliothdque nationale du Quebec The Images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated Impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated Impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol -^(meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. L'exemplaire filmd fut reproduit grAce A la g6n6rosit6 de: Bibliothdque nationale du Quebec Les Images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec ie plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettetd de l'exemplaire film6, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont ia couverture en papier est imprimde sont filmds en commen^ant par Ie premier plat et en terminant soit par la detnidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'Impression ou d'iliustration, soit par Ie second plat, selon Ie cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmds en commen^ant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'Impression ou d'iliustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre Image de cheque microfiche, selon Ie cas: Ie symbols "-^> signifie "A SUIVRE", Ie symbols V signifie "FIN ". lire Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre filmis d des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque Ie document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul ciichd, il est filmd d partir de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant Ie nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mdthode. by errata led to 9nt jne pelure, aqon d 1 2 3 32X 1 2 3 4 5 6 I THE NEW LAWS OF EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY IIN* ENGLAND AND FRANCE THEIR BEARING ON THE LAW OF THE PROVINCie OF QUEBEC WITH THE TEX'I' OF THE TWO ACTS BY FREDERICK PARKER WALTON, ADVOCATE OK THE SCOTTISH BAR, <4ALE PROFESSOR OF ROMAN LAW, AM) DEAN OF THE FACULTY, MCOILL UNIVERSITY, MONTREAL * ■ « . » I . . < I > • * f - % • » • • • • . • », » " • • • u • I* • '—1 ;.i_- 3 »_JL.._ • • • • • *, • :\i MONTREAL, Can. C. THEORET, PUBLISHER, LAW BOOKSELLER IMPORTER AND BINDER, 11 and 13 St. James Street '■ -1: 1. - ii< r'i^f *,' \ \ e^i Krik-rod according to act of Parliament of Canada, in tlie year one liiousand nine liundrod, by C. Thboket. Publisher of Montreal, in the Department of the Minister of Agriculture, Ottawa. t^-tm*.-* * • . • • ' I ■ r 1 ' .' .> ^ PREFATORY NOTIL. This article is, witli some additions, a lecture de- livered to the" Junior Bar Association of Montresil. An eclectic legal system, like that administered here, has the defects of its qualities. One of them is that English, French and American cases are thrown together pell-mell for the purposes of an argument. In the hurry of preparation it is very easy to over- look a difference of principle which may make the English case less applicable. I thought, therefore, that it might be useful to state the points of contrast in the two laws. As it stands, our law is in a curious po- sition. A French writer, describing a similar state of affairs, wittily says : " les arrets ne rendaient plus qu'un platonique hommage h la th^orie classique du Code." Lawyers are the most conservative of mortals. They cling with desperate tenacity to the formuUe of a past age. Even in countries where the law is not codified, its advance is almost imperceptible, unless the legis- lator rudely intervenes. Under a Code the judge is tied still more tightly to the formula. He must in- terpret and not make the law. 63315 IV PKEFATORY NOTE "VUW**"""' But it Koiiietimes happens that the world moves too fast, or that the wheels of legislation are too slow. The old formula has got to appear so narrow and inadequate that the judge is as anxious as fche counsel to give it a new interpretation. He expounds the texts as the ancients expounded the oracles. The oracle cannot have erred. That which has happened must have been the thing foretold. If men expected something ditferent it was because they misunderstood the dark saying. So if the Code gets too narrow it must be read in another light. We must pour into it a new sense to tit it to a new world. In the following pages, I have tried to shew that thiss is our present condition as to this branch of the law. The new English Act and the new French Loi are printed at the end. TABLF. OF CONTitNTS. Kngland and Francw liavo ioj«'ct.od tlioory that ciiiployer's fault is ground of liability . I Tncertainty of law ]it>rt' I Conseriuenco of change to (Miiployers •_' New rule in Kuropean t-ountrios ;! Causes of chango of law in Knrojte .") Increase of risk in modern industry Vt Accident of which cause is unknown oi' " accidi-nt anonymc " 7 English law as to this 7 French law 7 Law of this Province s Pr()portion of accidents due to unkn;»wn (•aus(! '.» Statistics in Europe !> In what cases it may l»e presumed that employer is in fault. !• Accident caused by defects in machinery or appliances '.• English law as to this 1(» French law U Defences competent by English Law 1*J Common Employment or " Fellow Workman ' I."> French law as to defence of " fellow workman " 14 Law of this Province 14 Contributory Negligence 1 "» Doctrine analysed M> French law as to contril)Utory negligence U* Faute commune H» No division of damages l)y Englisii law lil French law divided damages 21 Law of this Province as to this '22 French jurisprudence prior to new law 2li Discussion of ground of employer's lial)ility 2'i Liability for things under his care ...:.. 24 Liability for breach of contract 25 Excused if accident due to force majeure 25 TI TABLE OF CONTEf^TS Page C(»ur de Cassation IjoIcIh to old theory that fault is ground of liability 2<» Legislation decided on in France , 27 Kxpensiveuoss of old system in Franco and Kngland 2H Legislation decided on in Knglai.d 28 \nalysis of New English act 28 Not necessary to prove fault 29 " Serious and wilful misconduct " 29 Analysis of new French law 32 Not necessary to prove fault ',\0 (comparison of new laws with each other 35 Position of iuatters in this Province 3(> Text of English Act of 1897 39 Text of French Lol of 1898 56 THE NEW LAWS OF EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY FOR ACCIDENTS IN ENGLAND AND FRANCE AND THEia BEARING ON THE LAW OF THE PROVINCE OF QUEBEC. It is ii very iinprutiuit nii^w of the tiincs that two of the chief induHtrial CDiuitries of Europe li.ive lately been reeastiiip; the law of liability for actidciits. There is, I .suppose, no more causal connection between the Workmen's (yompensation Act 1S!>7 and the '• loi dii {> avril 1S!>S "' than if liOndoji and Paris were in different i)lanets. But the problem to be solved was fundamentally the same in both countries, and if a closely similar .'•olution has been found, there is at least a stronji,' presumption that it is a solution which satisfies the popular sense of justice. Broadly' speaking, both England and France have thrown over- board the traditional doctrine of the law, that a work- man could never recover danjage.^ for injuries sus- tained through an accident, unless he could prove that the accident was caused by the fault of his employers. The Roman law said quae sine culpa accidunt a nullo prcestantur {de reg. jur. 28) and every modern system followed this general rule. Under the new law the English workman must be compensated unless it is proved that the injury is attributable to his own ''serious and wilful misconduct' ' 8. 2,His Prenchbrother isonlybarred if he has "inten- tionally pi voked the accident," s. 20 j but the Court may diminish the damages if the accident was due to the '*faute inexcusable " of the victim. In this province the present law is stringent enough upon employers. Indeed, I venture to think that they TIIK NKW I.AWS OV i are often found liable only l>y Kivinj; to the eo«le an in ei letation which it was never intended to boar. But the hiw, as now adniinistcrfMl, has two j^jrcat defects. It is expensive and it is uncertain. Eveiy ju " 554 due to unknown cause or ;> " If these figures represent at all fairly the propor- tions in other countries, — and I see no reason why there should be any difference — they show that under the old rules of law the employer is only liable in about oue-fourth of all the cases of serious injury. Calculations made in Belgium confirm them. M. Harze estimates there, that out of a hundred accidents to workmen, seventy give no claim to legal reparation, if the law requiring actual fault is strictly applied, (see Htocquart, '* Contrat de Tra ail, " p. 101). In Switzerland it was reckoned that only from 12 to 20 per cent, of accidents were due to fault of the employer. I do not doubt that, as the law is administered in this Province, the master is here held responsible in verj^ many of the cases classed in Germany as unavoidable accidents. This result is reached by allowing '' fault " to be presumed from circumstances. As judges differ widely with regard to their liberality iu admitting such presumptions, au element of uncertainty is thus introduced. Defect hi Machinery or Appliances There is, however, a large class of cases in which either direct evidence or " weighty, precise and con- sistent presumptions arising from the facts " — to em- ploy the language used in the Supreme Court of il- !l 10 THE NEW LAWS OF Canada, iu '' Montreal Rolling Mi LlsCo. v. (Joicoran '' — enable the precise cause of the accident to be deter- mined. Supposing^ as often happens, that tlie acci- dent is proved to be due to a detect in the machinery used. Is this in itself enough to make the employer liable ? There are many cases in which his liability may be clear. His machinery may be shown to be of an antiquated and dangerous type, or the particular jnachine, originally good, may have been worn out, or it has been allowed to be used without reasonable Inspection from time to time, and repairs, obviously needed, ;have not been made. Now, in cases of this kind, there has of late years been a pronounced ten- dency on the part of judges in England lo hold employers liable in circumstances in which they would formerly have escaped. Even the .anguage of Cockburn, C. J., which I quoted from the well- known case of '' Woodley," would hardly be used now without some qualification. What that learned judge spoke of rather as a moral duty than one which the law would enforce, viz : to do all that can be done in reason to protect the safety of work- men, has now come to be looked upon as an implied, term of the contract. A master whose boilers are worn out will not be heard to say that the workman took the risk as part of the terms of his engagement. It may still be good English law (apart from the new Statute) to say that the workman takes the ordinary risks of the employment. But by " ordinary risks '' judges now understand such risks as are practically inevitable, such risks as even a vigilant and prudent employer cannot prevent. A very recent case in the English Court of Appeal is a good illustration of this change of judicial attitude. A tramway entered an en- gineering workshop, but was elevated eleven feet above the ground. The workmen in the course of their lOIl'LOVKKS' IJAJilLTTV 11 eiDployinent had occasionally to go up to the tramway or to come down from it to the floor of the works. No ladder was provided, but an iron bar was fixed in the wall by which they helped themselves up or down. A workman in attempting- to clamber down fell backward into a truck and Mas killed. It was held that the em- ployer was liable, on the ground that reasonably safe means of descent from the tramway ought to have been provided. The language of Lord Herschell in 8mith V. Baker (]89], App. Ca. at p. :UV2) was quoted with approval. " It is quite clear that the contract between employer and employed involves on the part of the former the duty of taking reasonable care to provide l)roi)er appliances, and to maintain them in a proper condition, and so to carry on his operations as not to subject those employed by him to unnecessary risk." (Williams v. Birmingham Battery Co. 1890, 2 Q. B. 338). But when proper appliances are provided and proper care is taken to keep them in order the master is not liable in England (except under the new Act) unless the workman proves that the master knew the appliances had become unsafe, and that he — the work- man — was ignorant of the danger. In other words, the , law requires proof that the defect in the macliine was one which the master oughi to have discovered. This case of Williams is the high watermark reach- ed by the common law. In France liability in respect of defects in machinery has been carried a stage further. In a case decided IGth June 18915, the fiicts were these. A boiler on a ship exploded and killed an engineer. p]xperts reported that they had found the causf . It was a defect in a joining of the boiler. The Cour de Cassation held that the lower court had been justified in finding the employer liable in damages. (S. 1807, 1. 17). Here there w.is no negligence in any ordinary sense of the '•( 12 THE NKW LA^\^S OF I i :; I ■' term. The delect iu the boiler was occult. It was uot showu that any inspection would have revealed it. Accor«linj;ly the judj;nient was not based on the ar- ticle of the Code Napoleon correspond inj^- to our article 105;>, but on article l.SSI whi(di c«)rresponds to our 1054. Tlie master was held liable not for his own fault or the fault of any person, but for the fault of a thing i. e., of a thing which he had under his care. Upon this theory an eui[)loyei' who places a machioe or a tool under the control ofawoikiuan is held to have guaranteed that it shall not injure him owing to some defect iu its construction, and no proof that it was, so far as he knew, the best that money could buy, will exonerate him. 1 will refer to this new ground of liability later on. But the subsequent case shews that the precise '• vice de construction '' must be proved. It will not be presumed that because a boiler bursts it must have been defective. (Cass. 28 fevr. I897;8irey, 181)8, 1. G5j By the method of judicial interpretation the highest Court in France had arrived at this very curious result. A master was liable if it could be shewn that an accident happ-iued through some fault even latent in the construction of his machine. But he was not liable when it wjis impossible to say what it was that caused the machine to go wrong. This may have been a sound construction of the Code, but it is very hard to justify it upon grounds of common sense. In both cases, the workman was an innocent victim, and in both the master was absolutely free from blame. The new law is surely more logical in applying the same rule to both cases. It remains to notice two other defences, in addition to want of proof of negligence, which were admitted by the common law in England. These are : 1. Com- mon employment or *' fellow workman " and 2. Con- tributory negligence. KMIM.OVKRS' MARFMTV 13 Common Employment I. The lirst is Ji particular caseofthe jj:eneral rule that a workman has contracted to take the ordinary risks incident to the work. One ot'tliese risks is that he may be injured by the ne^lij;ence of a lellow workman. If so, it was a firmly established rule of law in Eng- land that he had no redress except ajjjainst the fellow workman. In a leading case, Lord Cairns said : '' In the event of his (i.e. the employer's) not personally superintending and directing the work, he is bound to select proper and competent persons to do so, and to furnish them with adequate materials and resources for the work. When he has done this, he has in my opinion, done all that he is bound to do. And if the persons so selected are guilty of negligence, this is not the negligence of the master •' {Wilson v. Merry. L. R., 1 Sc. App. at p. '.V{>. II H-ist, (><». Mm' defendani, who had ]>een repairing- his h(»uso, had carelessly left a p(do barring- part of tlio nnu\. The plaintilf, ildioK fa«t in the evening-, ran into the pole, and was thrown, and injured. It was held that he could not rei'over, as in Hpite of the iiy : " People must not give w.\y to panic, if you had sliewn perlect ' sang-froid ' you would not have been injured." So, if a horse runs away from some defect in the reins, or the diiver, and a passenger jumps out, and breaks his leg, lie juay re cover if upon the facts it seems that his fright was not out of all })roi)ortion to liie danger. Lord Ellenborouirh said : "If 1 place a man in such a sitr.atiou that; he must ail ,)pl a perilous alternative, I am respoDsible for the consequences. "' (Jones v. Boyee. JNHJ, 1 Starkie, 49;i). Or, if a bale of wool is falling from a window, and I take a step which, iiistead of clearing it, brings me un .Manning & K.> land, 105). Further a child is only expected to think as a child, and will .not be disentitled to recover beeause an older person might hav<; got out of the way of tli" danger. An employer must take special care of em ployces wliose youth is likely to make them tliought less, (Bartonshill Coal Co. v. McGuire, 3 Maeqneen, 311). In a recent case, tlie Court of Appeal, in Eng land, hel(i that a girl o( aaveiit can, which Lord lusher describes as a "tender age,*' was not bai-red by eontii- butory negligence when she had neglected to put on a mask i)rovided lor the employers in a soda-water ma nufactory and way injured by a bottle whicli burst. (Crocker v. IJanks, 4 'fitnes, L. R., ,324). But apart from such specialties the common law in England, and also in America, liolds that a plaintifl" KMPr.OYKKS' LIAKILITY 19 cannot recover if the proximate cause of the accident was his own carelessness. The leading case now is The Berniua, 18SS, i;} \]^\). Oa., 1. The 10inph»yers" Liability Act of 18S0, h theoi V. The Court considers rather which is the ;iP ril ■'■i 22 THK NEW LAWS OF 1 . I !i ii^ i ; l)rinciprtl muse, or whose nej;Iigei»ce is the jijieater, and adjusts the (hiinaj^es aeeordiiijrly. If the parties seem to have been about equally t(> bhiine tlie loss is divided. In many Freneii Courts tlie practice has become common to give the phiintiffin such cases half the damages to which he would otherwise have been entitled. '' He has sufferel to the extent of ij^JOOO, but he was himself to blame, give him $500." If, however, his fault was very gross and that of the defen- dant very slight, damages may be lefused altogether, (Larombiere, art. J 382, No. 29). The rule of dividing the loss in such a way if pos- sible as that each of the tw.» negligent patties shall pay for that part of it w4iich is due to his fault is applied in English law to the liability of two ship- owners whose vessels come into collision b,\ the fault of both. 8ir F. Pollock says it is '' a rule of thumb " (Torts. 2nd ed.. p. -112), and so it may be But, I confess, I prefer it to the rule of making one fault cancel another. In the Berniua, (13 Apj>. Ca, 1) Lindley, L. J., declared, he could not see why the admitalty i)rinciple as to injuries to ships, migh: not witii eijuai justice be applied to cases of injuries to persons. In this I*rovince the French rule as to foul e commune entitling the Court to divide the daniages was spoken of with api)roval by Dorion, C. J., in C. P. R. Co. v. Cadieux, 1887, M. L. R.. 3 Q. B. 315. That learned judge said, however, that up to that time it had not been adopted in the Piovince of Quebec. Since then it has been applied in several cases (Clement v. Rousseau, K. J. Q., 1 C. 8. 203 ; Carbonneau v. Lain6, R. J. Q,., ."» C. S. IUq ; Lapierre v. Donnelly, M. L. R., 7 S. C. 197). I am not in a pt sition to say whether it is now regarded as settled law. , , - ...,., So far as I can discover the point has not yet been EMPI.OYICRS' LIABILITY 23 fully discussed in the Supreme Court. The difference between the French view and the Enjjjlish was founded upon in the very recent case of Roberts v. Hawkins, (1898, 29 S. C. K. 218). But in the result the Court found that there was in that case no negligence on the part of tlie defendants to which the neglijxence ol the plaintiff might have been contributory. The accident was caused solely by the plaintiff's own fault. • Recent French JurinprmJence. I have now stated, as fairly as I can in the spa^e at my disposal, the English law prior to 1898, nnd J liave indicated two important points, viz. : the defences of " fellow workman "' and " contributory negligtnice," as to both of which the French law was more favourable to the workman, f now wish to notice briefly a somewhat curious development of the French law of quite recent dale. As the hardship of allowing the risque professioniiel to fall »h\ the workman came to press more and more upon the popnhir conscience it began to be suggested by ingenious law^'crs that pos- sibly the Civil Code was more humane than had hitherto been thought. Was it clear that the work- man must prove that his employer had been in fault t Might not the law presume fault without proof? or might there not be discovered in the code some other provision under which the <^niployer might be found liable, though his freedom from fault was as clear as the noonday sun 1 It is proverbi.il in lOngland that " hard cases make bad law." Now, speaking with all respect for those who differ, I think that a better illustration of the proverb could hardly be found than in the recent attempts made in France and Belgium to circumvent the code upon the question of employers' liability. - ii 24 THK ^•E^\ LAWS OF Given a pcor workiuau, ji rich emi)loyer, (perhaps a large railway company), an ingenious advocate, and a huniane judge anxious to give a reparation which he feels that natural justice demands, and, as all lawyers will see, a good deal may be done with a code. In Bel- gium, the question onvriere; has been for years very acute, and it is, therefore, not surpiising that the main attack upon the ohl law has been directed from that quarter. The articles 1.S82, i;{8G of the Code Civil Beige are identical with those of the Code Napoleon, and, with one or two difl'erences immaterial for the present pur- pose, identical also with our articles J05,'>, 1055. One of the chief advocates of the new view was M. Sainc- telette, a former minister of state in Belgium. (Sainc- telette, De hi responsahilite tt de la tjarantie, Paris et BruxelleH, 1.^84, see esp. pp. 129 seq.) Other sup- porters are Laurent (vol. 20, Xo. 639) and Marc Sauzet, Revue critique de legislation e' de jurisprudence, 1888. The arguments take two forms 1. Eetaining the theory of all the old writers, and of the jurisprudence, that the liability of the employer rests on delict or quasi-delict, it is urged that, if an accident occurs, there is a presumption that the master is in fault, and he is liable in damages unless he proves that the accident was due to an unavoidable cause. The ordinary rules of evidence are to be inverted to meet the " hard case" of the workman, and the onus is to be thrown on the defendant. The argument is supported by the provisions of the Code, that one is responsible for the things which he has under hi-^ care~soM« m garde,— 'a,\iA by theanalogy of the liability, incurred by the owner of an animal which hurts any- one, or of a building which falls and causes loss to a third person. EMPLUVKKS' IJAIIILITY M. 8iiinc'telette himself presented this contention before the 0(mr de Cassation de Belgique, but did not succeed in convincing the court. They lield that the owner of an animal was liable not as owner but as negligent. That this was so in the case of the owner of the building was shewn by the fact that he was only liable when the ruin happened from want of repairs, or from original defect in its construction. [Journal des TrUmnaiix, 1S89, p. 411). 2. The soundness of the old law is challenged upon an entirely diflerent ground, Lraving out of sight altogether the »^uestion of negligence — faute dilir- tuelle — may not the master be held liable for breach of contract — /ante contravtaeUe f This seems slill more adventurous. It is seriously maintained that in every contract of employment there is an implied term that the employer shall return the workman safe and sound to the bosom of his family. If he does not fulfil this imx>lit^d obligation he is in breach of contract. This view has been adopted in Luxembourg by the Cour Saperieure. (S. 1885, 4, 25). That I'ourt has held that under the contract the employer guarantees the workman against accidents from machinery. II doit repondre de aa machine vis- a-vis de ses ouvriers. The master must pay for the accident anonyme. He can only escape by proving that the accident was due either to the fault of the workman or to force majeure. And force majeure is not cas fortuit. Force majeure must be something quite unconnected with the machine or the work, not part of the risque professionnel. E. g. if the work- man is swallowed up by an earthquake, or devoured by a bear, the employer is not held to have contracted to take such a risk for it is not incident to the work. The French Courts, at least the Cour de Cassation, and the Courts of Appeal, in spite of many attacks and I ■I }i 2(> THE NKW LAWS OF \ of a tori'«*iit()f ii,rp;uiii(Hits from Mie onniinentators, stood tiiin ill iipplyinfij the old doctrine tliiit there was no lialiility unless tlie niiister was in fault and unless the workman provi'd it. !\Ions. p]sni<*in in two admirable notes 10 the cases in S. 1S!>7, 1.1 7 and S. 1898, 105, sums up the rules aflhered to l»y the ('our de Can^a- tiov, thus : " Faiitf (hi pafroii, reufxnisahilife dn. patron. " b\(ii1c dc I'oiirriei', pas de rcspojisahilife du patron. "• Arcidciif anonjime, i. c. — .si roiirricr ve peuf pronrrr '' aiiciine fante de/inic du patron, — pax de responsahilite '' dii patron.''' The I'nithest, jtoint they reached, was in the case already cited where they held the employer liable as for fault where the workni;!!! cnnld point to a definite riee de eoxstrnrtio)! of a machine as the cause of the accident. The ai'X'i'neiit that the respunsability for the fault (d' a lliiai;' mider a man's char|jj(i — -so^s m yarde applies lo a. machine used in carryin, tit. 3, chs. (> ami 7) and Domat, f liv. 2, tit. S. ss. 2 and \\) makes any such contention very diflicult. A ground of obli- gation so vastly important could hardly have escaped the notice of Pothier. Yet there is nothing in his work lo lend any countenance to ir. Moreover, there is absolutely no ground to suppose that the eodifiers meant to introduce any new law. Mons. EsmeiQ argues, and his argument convinces me, that the old law never contemplated a man being hehi liable for a X)ure accident. Liability in the case of the vicious animal or the ruinous building is natural enough. The owner of an animal can restrain it, or if this ii* KMI'LOYKKS' J.FABILITV iiuposaihlo, he vau kill it. He hits no rijjlit to allow it to cause F it is hiinUy the piiiuaiy iiiteiost to coiisider. Xow. ii. Kiij^lrHicl, the employer was not spared. Whctlier 1ih won or lost, he lind heavy costs to |)ay. His recourse against the phiintift' when In* won was, naturally, worthless. As the Scotch proverb says : -'Vou cannot take the breeks from a i[i}jjhlanen when he succeeded in break- ing down every defence he often found thi^^ a large part of the damages recovered went into the pocket of Itis lawyer as extrajudicial expenses. In recovering a sum of perhaps CoOO an expense of iVom CI, 000 to £2.000 was often incurred. The employer has to pay — let us say — C2,;i00, the workman perhaps gets ,C20u, and C2, TOO is swallowed up in lawyers' fees, and other expenses. Such a system of remedy in accident- cases was, I really think, hardly wortli transplarjting to the American Continent, and that a country like the United States, where democracy is said to be triumphant, sliould remain contented with it alto- gether baffles my comprehension. New English Act. I now proceed to consider the new legislation. The new Act in England came into operation on 1st July, i;MI'f,nVKUS' MAIUII TV 2}) 1S9S. It is citod Jis tlMi \\'(»i UiiKMi's CoiiiixMisatioii Act, 1S*>7 r()() and HI Vict. c. .{7. i Tiioiij-h pussed on tho 'Itli AujJTUst, l.S!)7, its connnciiccinont was postponed until tlic hst July following', in order to jjivc time to employers to elt'ect insm'!inc<^s, and make such otiier arrangements as mijjhl seem necessary. 1. The act is not universal. It is lim ted to certain trades. It appli(?s to rail way men, factory hands, miners, (juarrymen, men employed in " engiiieei'inj; work '' and, with some limitations, to men employed in building- operations. " Factory." however, is a wide word ; it means any ])iemises where toi' the pnipose of gain a nianufactnrin}:; process is cariied on with the assistance of steam, water, or other mechanical power, and in addition, eighteen specilied kinds of works, whether medianical power is used or not. It is estimated tliat tlie Act applies to between six and seven millions of workers. It leaves out sailors, agricultural labourers, domestic servants and work- ers in many small li mdicrafts. 2. The workman can recover if the injury was caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of the employment. He has not to prove any I'.iult of the employer or of the plant. But he is barred if it is proved that the injury is attributable to his own " serious and wilful mis- conduct." As to this, it is to be noted (a) that the onus of proving the misconduct lies on the employer, (b) that it must be misconduct, not merely negligence, and (c) that it must be wilful. I suppose a man who went on to a roof to repair it when he was in a state of intoxication, or a man who struck a match in a gunpowder factory, contrary to the rules, would be regarded as guilty of such misconduct as is here intended. But the more common case of in- attention or carelessness even of a gross character !, 1' 30 Tin: NI.W LAWS OK 1^1 M'(Hil(l iH»t, 1)0 suilicuMit. lOvt'M .s(., tlio Fr«'iicli law is mon; liberal arwl lln' (Jt'iiiiMii law ^m)(*m further than any. In France, the w (laiJia;i<'S in I lie c:is< when I he accident is due ro the t'oii/i' liicxciinthlc . ('out I •1(1 .11^' tuu l;■^ willy allowed by the Work- men's ('"impensalidii Acl subject to vciy striny;ent con- (lit ions. W'lit'ii theie is a sclnine (»f insui'ance in force, which, ill the oi>inion «)f th<^ Kt'*i;islrar of Friendly Societies is not less fiivtiniiibb' to the workmen than the iHoviyions of 111*' Act, the employer may contract with the men that thes(diemcso approvetl of sliall be substituted for 111" Act in their case. This was inserted because many companies and large employers had benelit- s(d»emes in operation, and large funds invested. It makes the Hegisti-ar mast(;rof thesituation, and secures to the workman that he cannot be deprived of the l)onetit (d" the Act unless he gets something at least as good in <'xchange. 4. If the employer has insured himself against his liability for accident-claims, and he afterwards be- comes bankrui)t, the workman has a first charge upon the sum payable !)y the insurers. This is a very important protection, as it can hardly be doubted that most employers, will now need to provide against their new liabilities by insurance. The persons entitled to compensation are work- men of all grades, including overseers and clerks, or KM I' VI:KS 1,1 a mi MTV 31 in ciisii ol" I'lUiil lU'cidiMits, tlifir (loptni(iiU)ts. •' Depen- dants," i.s used, ho\v<'ver, in a rather restricted sense. It nienm si tdi ineniliers of the worku'ian's family specified ir liOrd ('inupbell's Act ( I<\ital Accidents Act, IHH)), as were wlhdly or in p;irt dependant o\\ th(! earnings of the worKnian at his death. PcM-uniary loss must he sulVercd, e. ^. a fat her, whose son has l)e«Mi killed, hits no claim, unless as a niatlcf of fju t, he was being supported wholly or partly by his son. 5. The compensation is in the form of a lump sum in cas«^ of death, or a weidcly payment in case of total or partial incapacity loi' woik. Thf sum payable in fatal cases can never exceed C.»00. li will ;4enerally be les>, for it cannot exceed the workma(»'.> earniu,i;s for the previous three years. Hut if thi; earnin.i;s were less than C150, thatsum can neverth^dess be lecoverel. The dcix'udants of a skilh'd w(»rkman whon* wajjjes were >!«20 a week, as they can never get moie than $1500, will only get a sum e(iual to about the earnings for a year and a half. When tiieaccidcnt causes total or partial incapacity, tlie comii^Musation is a weekly payment not exceeding 50 per cent, of the workman's average earnings, and ii; uo case more tlian one pound a week. The employer may, after .six months, redeem the weekly payments by a lump sum fixed by arbitration. I note, in i)assing. that both the French and Gernnin laws are moie liberal in the case of a w«»rkman pertuanently incapa- citated for any work. In that very sad, but unfor- tunately, not veiy uncommon case, the Fren(di or German workman is entitle i to an annuity equal to two thirds of his fi-rmer earnings. 6. Procedure. Failing agreement as to the liability to compensate, or the amount of compensation, the ques- tion is to besettled by arbitration. This means that if a committee representing the employer and the men Li r . I TJfJ-: NEW I.AWS OF i. i'f- exists, (as is the case iu some large works), the com- mittee may decide, if the parties both agree to this course. Otherwise, they may choose au arbitrator, and, failing agreement, the comity court judge is to be arbitrator. In practice, the county-court judge will generally be the arbitrator, because he will have to do the work as part of his ordinary duties, whereas an arbitrator mutually chosen would have to be paid. The i)rocedure is to be simple and summary, and there is no appeal on matters of fact. Upon matter of law there is an appeal. 7. The remedies open to a workman before the Act are not taken away. He may still sue the employer at common law, but the master's liability is alterna- tive and no*-, additional. If the workman choose to proceed under the Act, and lie recovers compensation, he cannot afterwards br'ng nuy other claim. In cases where the fault is clear and the loss great, it may still be au advantage for the workman to proceed at common law, for then he can recover damages to any amount which a sympathetic jury may give, iust :ad of being limited to ^^300. Neic French Law. I now turn to the French law. It is the outcome of twenty years discussion. ISome statistics collected by the 4th Civil Chamber in Paris will give a better idea of the unsatisfactory working of the old law, than piges of description. They cal- culated that of 349 actions for compensation on account of accident Vetween 1878 and 1881, only 152 resulted In favour of the plaintiff. Only 51 were decided withiu a year, 159 took between one and two years, 73 between two and three years, 3(> more than three years. One action dragged (►ver seven years. employers' liability 33 The first proposal was the bill of Mons. Martin Nadaud, in 1880, to invert the burden of proof. The employer was to be liable unless he proved that the accident was due to the fault of the victim. This, however, never passed, and gradually opinion came round in favour of the theory of risque profesiiionnely i. e., that, apart from all considerations of fault, com- pensation for injuries should be, as it were, a first charge upon the proiits of the employment. 1. The Act as finally passed, applies to all indus- trial employments, building, mining and the like, and every exploitation in which machinery driven by artificial power is used. It does not apply to sailors, but they are provided for by a separate law of 21 april 1898. All contracts against the Act are null. 2. Workmen to whom the Act applies have now no claim except under the Act. The Act does not apply in full to workmen whose annual earnings exceed 2,400 francs or $480. In computing the compensation due to them the excess above $480 is only reckoned at one- fourth of its actual amount : Thus, a workman who gets a salary of 4000 francs is for the purposes of the Act treated as getting only 2,800 i. e. 2,400 and one fourth of l.GOO. But as to this it may be agreed that the workman's whole salary shall form the basis of cal- culation. Such an agreement is not null, as contrary to the Act. 3. The employer is liable for medical expenses, and for funeral expenses, but the last only up to 100 francs. , 4. Gratuitous legal aid is given by the State (assis- tance judiciaire) . 5. In case of fatal accident the compensation is not a Inmp sum as in England. It is a rente viagere. The widow is entitled to 20 per cent, of the annual earnings of the husbanil. If she marries again she gets a lump sum of three years' annuity, and it then ceases. t \ 34 THE NEW J.AWH OF Children legitimate or illegitimate get a rente up to to the age of 1(5. One child gets 15 per cent., two get 25 per cent., three get 35 per cent, and lor four or more 40 per cent, is payable. A mother and four children will thus getaiiogether 60 per cent, of the father's earnings. And if the mother is dead the rente for the children is higher. They then get 20 per cent, each, but not more than 60 per cent. in all. Failing widow and children, ascendants, or descen- dants more remote than children, are entitled each of them to 10 per cent, of the earnings of the victim, but so that not more than 80 per cent, t^hall be paid in all. 6. The family of a foreign workman have no claim to compensation if they were not living in French territory at the time of the accident. The German law is the same. The English law upon this point is more generous, and makes no distinction between foreigners and British subjects It is to be hoped that the exclusion of foreigners from a claim expressly based on grounds of justice and humanity will not long continue in force. 7. A workman totally and permanently incapacit ated from work is to get u rente equal to two-thirds of his earnings. In the case of partial and permanent incapacity he gets an annuity equal to half the reduction in his earnings. In the ease of temporary incapacity he gets half the amount of his earnings at the time of the accident. ] have already spoken as to the efl'ect of fault in diminishing his claim. 8. The workman's claim in the case of permanent incapacity, and the claim of his representatives in fatal EMPLOYEKy" LIABILITY 35 cases is absolutely assured to him. If he canuot recover it from his employer, or from an insurance company in which hi.s employer has insured, the annuity will he paid by the state. A special guarantee fund is established for this purpose, supported by a tax upon employers, and the state through the cakse nati'jnalehm a recourse againstthe particular employer who his failed to pay the annuities for which he was liable. Space does not allow me to compare the two laws with each other more fully. It is evident that in two important points the French, law is more favourable to the workman. In the first place the French work man is absolutely secure of getting his annuity. An English workman might be defeated of his compensa- tion if the employer were bankrupt and uninsured. No doubt the larger employers at least will generally be insured. But this is not compulsory; and the state guarantee will give the French workman a security vv^hich his English ' rother has not. . Second, payment by rente, or annuity,is I think much better for the workman than payment by a lump sum. A ijoor family suddenly receiving a lump sum will be exposed to many risks, and it is to be feared that the sum recovered in too many cases will be managed in an improvident way. In such matters, however, it is le premier pas qui coiite. The establishment of the broad principle that workmen are to be indemnified for the risks arising out of their occupation, even though the employer was not to blame, is a step of infinite im porta nee. It is generally admitted that the English Act has not diminished litigation so much as was hoped. The number of disputed cases so far has been very great. That, however, arises merely from defective draught manship, It ought not to be impossible to indicate 30 THE NEW LAWS OF ' I IP'< H^ in unanibigaouB terms to what eaiployments the Act should apply. Many of the English cases turn upon this point. And the expression '• serious and wilful misconduct '' has caused much diflSculty. If we compare the state of matters in this Province, I think it will hardly be disputed that the law is just LOW in a somewhat unsettled and unsatisfactory con- dition. The opinions of the judges differ considerably as to what they will regard as sufficient evidence of fault. Some go further even than the Cour de Cassation, and do not require the workman to specify and prove any precise vice de construction when the accident is caused by machinery. It is enough that it was the master's machine. If it goes wrong, there must be some fault in it. Moreover, there is a conviction, no doubt justitied by experience, that the Supreme Oourt takes a more rigorous view than the judges of the lower Court. Accordingly damages are frequently laid at nineteen hundred and ninety nine dollars to prevent the possibility of appe il. Both as regards the proof of fault and of the amount of damages there is the greatest uncertainty. This is in itself a grave evil. An impression that the large or small amount awarded depends on the par- ticular judge before whom the case is heard, is cal- culated to discredit the administration of justice. And such a tendency is certainly not lessened by knowing that careful provision has been made to prevent the case ever reaching the highest tribunal in the country. Now, unless the united voice of Europe is wrong, the workman's claim is founded in justice and equity even though fault is not shewn. If so, and if that opinion is now general in this country also, it would surely be better to amend the law than to torture the Code. The experience of Germany has not been to show that the change is a heavy burden upon employers. employers' LFABILITY 37 The sum for which they are liable is limited in amouut, whereas Jiuljies, and still more, juries, frequently award extravagant sums. It seems to me difficult to contend that a change in the statutory law by a moderate and well-drawn Act would increase in this province the burden resting upon the employers, Its main effect would be to give legislative sanction to a liability which is already en- forced in practice. And there is no doubt it would clear up a great deal that is at present uncertain and confused. There is a great saving in litigation, and the in- surance companies enable employers to spread the risk in such a way that it is least burdensome. More- over, employers, more than any other class, must know the dangers which surround the workman, and must be anxious lo see him protected so far as possible. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1897 [(iOand Gl Vit't., cli. ;{7.] An Act to amend the Law with respect to Compensa- tion to Workmen for accidental Injuries suffered in the course of their Employment. Rith August 1897.] Be it enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spi- ritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and l)y the authority of the same, as follows: — I. — (1.) If in any employment to which this Act applies personal injury by accident arising out of and in course of the employment is caused to a workman, his employer shall, subject as hereinafter mentioned, be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the First Schedule to this Act. (2.) Provided that :— («.) The employer shall not be liable under this Act in respect of any injury which does not disable the workman for a period of at least two weeks from earn- ing full wages at the work at which he was employed ; (b.) When the injury was caused by the personal negligence or wilful act of the employer, or of some person for whose act or default the employer is res- ponsible, nothing in this Act shall affect any civil liability of the employer, but in that case the work- man may, at his option, either claim compensation under this Act, or take the same proceedings as were open to him before the comuiencement of this Act ; but the employer shall not be liable to pay compensa- tion for injury to a workman by accident arising out of anc' in the course of the employment both inde- pendently of and also under this Act, and shall not be liable to any proceedings independently of this 40 WOKKMKN'S OU.Ml'ENHATroN ACT, I SOT Act, except in case of such personal negligence or wilful act as aforesaid ; (c.) If it is proved that the injury to a workman is attributable to the serious and wilful misconduct of that workman, any compensation claimed in respect of that injury shall be disallowed. (3.) If any question arises in any proceedings under this Act as to the liability to pay compensation under this Act (including any question as to whether the employment is one to which this Act applies), or as to the amount or duration of compensation under this Act, the question, if not SHttle«l by agreement, shall, subject to the provisions of the First Schedule to this Act, be settled by arbitration, in accordance with the Second Schedule to this Act. (4.) If, within the time hereinafter in this Act limited for taking proceediniiS, an r.otion is brought to recover damages independently of this Act for in- jury caused by any accident, and it is determined in such actiou that the injury is one for which the em- ployer is not liable in such actiou, but that he s\ould have been liable to pay compensation under the pro- visions of this Act, the action shall be dismissed ; but the court in which the action is tried shall, if the plaintift" shall so choose, proceed to assess such com- pensation, and shall be at liberty to deduct from such compensation all the costs which, in its judgment, have been caused by the plaintiff bringing the action instead of proceeding un7 41 2, — (1) Proceed injijs for the recovery uiuler this Act of compensation for an injury shall not he maintain- able unless notice of the ar by sending it by post in a registered letter addressed to the employer at the oflBce, or if there be more than one office, any one of the offices of such body. t 42 WOKKMION's CO.MI'KXS.VIKtX \il\ 1897 *i 3^__('l. ) ir th»' licgustrar of Fjieiully Societies, after taking; steps to ascertain the views of the employer aud workmen, certifies that any scheme of coiupensa tion. lieiiedt, or iusuiance lor the workmen of au employer in any employment, whether or not. such sclieme inclndes olht-r eri.pl«»yeis ani their workmen, is on the whole not less favourable to the 7 la all such iiKHiirias ami to liiiDisli all sucli iKcoiuits in re}i,ani to the .sch«MiU! as nmy bo inatlt- or MMiuirol hy the U('p;iHtrai' * f F^riendly Sotictics. (7.) The Chicl" UHoisti-ar of Frif-iully Societies sh;ill include ill his amuial leport tli<' particulaiN of liie proceedings of the Kejijistiar under this Act. 4.— Where, in an employment to which this Act applies, the undejtakers as hereinafter y or under such C(.utractor of any work, and the undertakers Nvould, if such work were exectite, such workman shall liave a (irst charge upon the sum afore said for the amount so due, and the judge of the :!iti 41 wokkmkn's COMPKNSATION At charge upon "shall m«'an '' he pieferentially entitled to." 6, — Where the injury for which compensation is payable under this Act was caused under circums- tances creating a legal lial»ility in some person other than the employer to pay damages in respect thereof, the workman may, at his option, proceed, either at law against that person to recover damages, or against his employer for compensation under this Act, but not against both, and if compensation be paid undt-r this Act, the employer shall be entitled to be indem- nified by the said other person. 7.— (I.) This Act shall apply only to employment by the undertakers as hereinafter detined, on or in or about a railway, factory, mine, quarry, or engineering work, and to employment by the undertakers as here- inafter ilefinesati()X act, 1S07 ir. iind Workshop Acts, I.MS to ISIH andalso iiH^ludes any dock, wharf, quay, wareliouse, iiiachinery, or plant, to which any provision of the Factory Acts is applie, and every laundry worked by steam, water, or other mech- anical power : ' Mine " means a mine to which the ('oal Mines Kejjulation Act, 1887, or the Metalliferous Mines Re- gulation Act, 1872, applies : *' Quarry ' means a quarry under the Quarries Act, 1.S94 : ^' Engineering work " means any work of construc- tion or alteration or repair of a laiiroad, harbour, dock, canal, or sewer, and includes any other work for the construction, alteration, or repair of which machinery driven by steam, water, or other mechanical power is used : " Undertakers " in the case of a railway means the railway company ; in the case of a factory, quarry, or laundry means the occupier thereof within the mean- ing of the Factory and Workshop Acts, 1878 to ]8!)5; in the case of a mine means the owner thereof within the meaning of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887, or the Metalliferous Mines Regulation Act, 18/2, as the case may be, and in the case of an engiueering work means the person undertaking the construction, alteration, or repair ; and in the case of a building means the persons undertaking the construction, re- pair, or demolition : " Employer " includes any body of persons corpo- rate or unmcorporate and the legal personal rei)re- sentative of a deceased employer : '* Workman " includes every person who is engaged in an employment to which this Act applies, vvheiher by way of manual labour or otherwise, and whether his agreement is one of service or apprenticeship or otherwise, and is expressed or implied, is oral or in writing. Any reference to a workman who has been injured shall, where the workman is dead, inclnde a reference to his legal personal representative or to his dependants, or other person to whom compensation is payable : " Dependants " means — III 46 workmen's compknsation act, 1897 (a.) in England and Ireland, sncli members of the workuiau's family specified in the Fatal Accidents Act, 1846, as were wholly or in part dependant upon the earnings of the workman at the time of his death ; and (h.) in Scotland, such of the persons entitled accord- ing to the law of Scotland to sue the employer for damages or solatium in respect of the death of th«^ workman, as were wholly or in part dependant upon the earnings of the workman at tlie time of his death. (3.) A workman employed in a factory which is a shipbuilding yard shall not be excluded from this Act by reason only that the accident arose outside the yard in the course of his work upon a vessel in any dock, river, or tidal water near the yard. 8, — (1.) This Act shall not apply to persons in the naval or military service of the Crown, but otherwise sliall apply to any employment by or under the Crown to which this Act would apply if the emj)loyer weie a private person. (2.) The Treasury may, by warra]::it laid before Par- liament, modify for the purposes of this Act their warrant made under section one of the Superannuation Act, lis87, and notwithstanding anything in that Act, or any such warrant, may frame a scheme with a view to its being ccrtilied by the Registrar of Friendly So- cieties under this Act. 9.. — Any contract existing at the commencement of this Act, whereby a workman relinquishes any right to compensation from the employer for personal injury arising out of and in the course of his employmeni, shall not, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to continue alter the time at which the workman's con- tract of service would determine if noiice of the deter- mination thereof were given at the commencement of this Act. 10. — (1.) This Act shall come into operation on the irst day of July, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight. (2.) This Act may be cited as the Workmen's Com- pensation Act, 1897. WORKMKN'S C'tMPENBATION ACT, 18<)7 47 SCHEDULES. FIRST SCHEDULE. SoALi: AND Conditions of Compensation, Scale (1.) The amount ol" compeusatioii under this Act shall be — (a) where death results from the injury — (i.) if the workman leaves any dependants wholly dependant upon his earnings at the time of his death, a sum equal to his earnings in the employment of the same employer during the three years next preceding the injury, or the buni of one hundred and fifty i)ounds, whichever of tho.se sums. if the larger, but not exceed ing iu any ca^e three hundred pounds, provided that the amount of any weekly payments made under this Act shall be deducted from such sum, and if the period of the workman's employment by the said employer has been less than the said three years then the amount of his earnings during the said three years shall be deemed to be 156 times his average weekly earnings during the period of his actual employment under the said en»ployer ; (ii ) if the workman does not leave any such depend- ants, nut leaves any dependants iu part dependant upon his earnings at the time of his death, such sum, not ex(;eeding in any case the amount payable under the fort going provisions, as may be agreed upon, or, iu default of agreement, my be determined, on arbitration under this Act, to be reasonable and proportionate to the injury to the said dependants ; and (iii.) if he leaves no dependants, the reasonable ex- I 1 48 workmen's compensation act, 1897 penses of his medical atteodauce and burial, not exceeding ten pounds. (6.) where total or partial incapacity for work results from the injury, a weekly payment during the inca- X^acity after the second week not exceeding fifty per cent, of his average weekly earnings daring the pre- vious twelve months, if he has been so long employed, but if not, then for any less period during which he has been in the employment of the same employers, such weekly payment not to exceed one pound. (2.) In fixing the amount of the weekly payment regard shall be had to the difference between the amount of the average weekly earnings of the work- man before the accident, and the average amount which he is able to earn after the accident, and to any paym«*nt not being wages he may receive from the employer in respect of bis iujurj'^ during the period of his incapacity. (tJ.) Where a workman has given notice of an acci- dent, he shall, if so required by the employer, submit himself for examination by a 1 1 > ! WOKICAfKN's rOAIPF-NflATFOX ACT, 1S!>7 53 (9.) Where any matter mule" this Aet is to be<]ono in a county eoiirt, or by to or bef.^re tlieju(lp:e or registrar of a eounty court, then, unless tiie contrary intention appeur, the same shall, subject to rules of court, be done in. or by to or before tlie jiidjre or re- gistrar of, the county court of the district in which all the parties concerned reside, or if they reside in different districts the district in which the accident out of which the said matter arose occurred, without l)rejudice to any transfer in manner provided by rules of court. (10.) The duty of a county court jndge under this Act, or of an arbitrator appointed by him, shall, sub ject to I'ules of court, be part of the duties of the county court, and the otlicers of the court shall act ac- cordingly, and rules of court may be made both for any purpose for which this Act authorizes rules of court to be made, and also generally for carrying into effect this Act so far as it affects the county court, or an arbitrator appointed by the judge of the county court, and proceedings in the county court or before any such arbitrator, and sucli rules may, in England, 1)0 made by the live judges of the county courts ap- pointed for the making of rules under section one liundred and sixty- four of the County Courts Act, ]S88, and when allowed by the Lord Chancellor, as provided by that section, shall have fall effect without any further consent. (11.) Xo court fee shall be payable by any party in respect of any proceeding under this Act in the county court prior to the award. (12.) Any sum awarded as compensation shall be paid on the receipt of the person to whom it is payable under any agreement or award, and his soli- citor or agent shall not be entitled t» I'ccover from him, or to claim a lien on, or deduct any amount for costs from, the said sum awarded, except such sum as may be awarded by the arbitrator or coutity court judge, on an application made by either party to de- termine the amount of costs to be paid to the said solicitor or agent, such sum to be awarded subject to taxation and to the scale of costs prescrib3d by rules of court. 54 wokkmicn's (•u:mi'e\sati(>x act, 1S!>7 ■l, I. i\:\.) TIk* Secrotary of Srutc may appoint lej^ally qualilied iiicMiical piaclif ioiUTs for the purpose of this Act, and any coniniittrc, arhitratoi-, or jn(l<;(^ may, subject to rcp;ulations inadc by the Secretary of State and th(; Treasury, appoint any such practitioner to repoit on any matter which seems material to any question arisinj^ in the arbitration ; and the expense of any such uiedical practitioner shall, subject to Treasury retaliations, ^e paid out of moneys to be provided by Parliament. (It.) In the application of this schedule to Scot- land — (a.) '•Sheriff" shall l)e substituted for *' county court judi^e," "sheriff court" for " county court," "action " for " plaint," "sheriff clerk '' for " re- gistrar of the county court," and " act of sederunt " for " rules of court; " (/>. ) Any award or agreement as to compensation under this Act may be competently recorded for execution in the books of council and session or shciilf court books, and shall be enforceable in like manner as a recorded decree arbitral ; (<•.) Any application to the sheriff as arbitrator shall be he. lid, tried, and detjermined summarily in the mannei- provided by the fifty-second section of the Sheiiif (Courts (Scotland) Act, 1870, save only that l)artics may be represented by any person authorised in writint; to appear for them, and subject to the declaration that itshall be competent to either party within the time and in accordance with the condi- tions prescribed by act of sederunt to require the sheritf to state a case on any question of law deter- mined by him. and liis decision thereon in such case may be subuiitttMl to either division <»f the (Jourt of Session, wht) m;iy hear ;ind deteriuine the same finally, and remit to tiie slieriff with instruction as to the judgment to be pronounced. (15) Paragraphs foni- and seven of this schedule shall not apply to Scotland. (It).) In the application of this schedule to Ireland the expiession *' county court judge," ^liall include the recorder of any city or town. coiiceriiant k's icspousjiMlites (k;s accidents doiit los ouvi'icrs soiit victiiiu's dans Icnr li'avail (111 avril 1.S98. Titre I. —Is DKMSlTKfi F,\ (AS d'ACCIOKNTS l« Les acciileuts surveiuis par le fail dii travjnl, on a I'occasiou dn travail, aux ouvriers et employes occupes daus I'industrie dii batituent, les iisiiies, mauufactiires, cbantiers, les eutreprises de transport par terre et par eaii, de chargemeot et de decliarj>'e- ment, les magasius publics, niiiie.% iniui^res, canieres et, en outre, daus toute exploitt'.iion ou partie d'ex- X^loitation dans la(iuelle sont fabriquees ou mises en (Deuvre des matieres explosives, ou ''aus laquell*' il est fait usage d'une machine iiiue par une iorceautr(^ (jue celle de I'hoiunie ou des auiniaux, donnent droit, au profit de la vicbime ou de ses representants, a une iudeiuint(S A, la charge du chef d'entreprise, a la con- dition que I'interruption de travail ait dure plus de quatre jours. Les ouvriers qui travaillent seuls d'ordiuaire ne pourront 6tre assujettis a la preseate loi par le fait de la collaboration accideutelle d'uu ou de plusieurs de leurs cainarades. "2. Les ouvriers et employ»^'S desigues a Particle prec<3dent ne peuvent se pr^valoir, a raison des acci- dents doiit ils sont victimes dans leur travail, d'au- cunes dispositions autres que celles de la presente loi. Ceux dont le salaire annuel d^passe deux luille quatre cents francs (2.400 fr.) ne b6n6ticient de ces dispositions que jusqu'^ concurrence de cette souuue. Pour le surplus, il n'en droit qu'au quart des rentes ou indemnites stipules a I'article 3, a moins de conven- tions contraires quant au chiffre de la quotite. .1. i ' 5() l,<)r CONCKKNAXr I.KS KKSI'ON'SAIMMTKS :{. Dans les cjis pr6viis u rarticlo 1, Touvrier on l'eini)l(>y/' a droit : Pour rincai)a(ite abHolue ot perinanento, a une rente ^'galo aux deux tieiH de Hoti t^alaire annuel : Pour I'ineapaeite partielle et pernui^'ente, i\ une rente ^''j^ale ;\ la nioiti<3 de la r<['Hluetion que l'ae('id«Mit aura lait subir an salaire; Pour l'ineai)aeite teniporaire, j\ une indemnit6 journali^re ejjjale a la nioitie du sjilaire touche au moment de laeeident, si I'ineapaeite de tiavail a dure plus de quatre jours et i\ partir du einqui^nie Jour. Lorsque I'aeeident est suivi de niorr, une pension est servie aux personnes ei-apies desi^nt'es, a partir du d6ces, duns les eonditions suivantes : («.) line rente viaj»ere egale a 20 p. 100 du salaire annuel de la victime t oui- ie eonjoint survivant non divore^ ou separ^ de corps, a la condition que le ma- riaj»'e ait 4t6 contracte anterieurement a, I'aeeident. En eas de nouveau mariajpje, le conjoint cesse d 'avoir droitft la rente mentionneeci-dessus ; il lui sera allou6 dans ee . Les chefs d'entreprise pen vent se decharjijer pen- dant les trente, soixante on quatre vingt dix premiers jours a parti r de I'accident, de I 'obligation de payer aux victimes les frais de maladie et 1 'indemnity tem- poraire, ou une partie senlement de cette indemnity, comme il est specitie ci-apres^ s'ils justitient : lo. Qii'ils out afftlie leuis onvriers a des societ^s de secours niutnels et piis a leur charge une quote- part de la cori>ation qui aura ete d^termin^e d'un commun accord, et en se conformant aux status tyi)e approuv6s par le ministre compe- tent, mais qui ne devra pas etre inferieure au tiers de cette cotisatiou ; 2o. Que ces soci6tes assurent a leurs membres, en cas de blessures, pendant trente, soixante ou quatre-vingt dix jours, les soins medicaux et B8 |,()| CONCKKNANT I.KS KIISI'ONSA HII.IT^IS phiit inaceutiqiM's (>t uiie in JuiinialiiMe. Si rmdtMnniK'^ JounialitMe seivio par hi Hoci^tt* est inlV'rieuuM'i lii inoitii''! 4. ii«' niontant et les conditions de cette subvention devrout 6tre acceptes par la soci6t6 et approuves par le niinistre des travaux i)uhli(*s, Ces deux dispositions seront applicablea t\ tous autres chefs d'industrie qui auiont cr^6 en faveur de leurs ouvriers des caisses particuli^res de secours en coufo'-niit6 du titre III de la loi du LM) juin 1