THE ABUSE OF PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATION fits in cases where no claim against the rail road company should be made. They could receive benefits, also, in cases where the in jury was the result of their own contribu tory negligence, or of that of fellow-servants in the same department of service, in both of which cases, as a rule, no right of action would arise against their employer. Now if the employees desire to enjoy the benefits of such contracts they should have the right to make them. They are capable of decid ing themselves whether they want to con tract for such protection. It is not within the powers of a legislature to assume that this class of men need paternal legislation, and that, therefore, they will protect them by depriving them of the power to contract as other men may."
205
Though the question discussed has usu ally arisen in actions between railroad com panies and their employees, of course the same rule would obtain as between any pri vate employer of labor and one of his em ployees. Indeed, it was involved in such a case wherein the Lake Superior Iron Co. attempted the organization of a relief de partment similar to that of railway com panies (63 Mich. 690). It is readily appar ent that for the ordinary employer of labor the organization of such a department of his business is impracticable, and the history of some of the relief departments formed by railway companies has shown the danger of attempting to merge the functions of insur ance company with those of a railroad. ST. Louis, Mo.. March, 1906.
MR. TAYLOR. AS long as machinery is used, personal well understood, has done much to encour injuries will occur. The increase in age this class of litigation. the number of accidents has been commen In defense, counsel have resorted to most surate with the more general use of ma subtle refinements of the law in respect of chinery. Laborers are not more careless assumption of the risk, fellow-servants, safe now than formerly, but the likelihood of places, rules, and kindred points, and in indi injury has become greater. We may, there vidual instances such differentiations have fore, look upon the problem of liability for been successful; but such legal distinctions personal injuries as one which cannot be have been met by variation of the facts so disposed of absolutely, but which must be as to take the cases out of the rule and thus handled in the manner which, in the long no permanent security has been obtained. run, will reduce the number of injuries and The result has been that employers have accord redress in meritorious cases only. been compelled to resort to insurance as the That great injustice now exists in the only method by which they can safely con legal administration of this class of cases is duct their business. Thus, an additional beyond dispute. The hope of securing large fixed expense has been placed upon them. contingent fees has lured into this field of From the standpoint of the courts this has practice not only attorneys with limited made no difference, however, for the insur business, but also many lawyers of great ance companies have simply taken the place ability and skill. Man^ cases which are of the employers. The number of cases has wholly without merit, are started with the not been decreased; indeed, this course has expectation that the defendant will settle had rather the opposite effect, because juries for at least the amount which it would cost are inclined to be especially liberal as against him to try the case, — a species of black insurance companies. mail. The inclination of judges to shift re Such is practically the present condition sponsibility and to place the solution of cases of this class of litigation in this country. in the hands of juries, whose prejudices are The courts are over-burdened. The trial
