Modern Economic Problems Part 28

Accident insurance had its beginnings in the liability of employers for accidents that happened as a result of the employer's negligence, a principle found to some degree in all countries. Thus the earlier payments to workers in cases of accidents were not insurance indemnity but merely damages collected in court for the fault of the employer.

In Great Britain and the United States, indeed, by judicial interpretation the law grew more strict as against the claims of the workers, until about 1880 in Great Britain and 1910 in the United States. To collect damages it was not enough for the workman to prove the employer's negligence, for collection was made more difficult by (1) the doctrine of contributory negligence, (2) the doctrine of the a.s.sumption of risk, and (3) the fellow-servant doctrine.

By the doctrine of contributory negligence, the workman's claim could be defeated by showing that he had by his carelessness contributed to the accident even when the employer had been negligent. By the doctrine of a.s.sumption of risk the workman was presumed, in entering upon employment, to have taken upon himself the risks usually incident to the employment, including the chance of imperfections in the machinery, of which he might by some care have known. By the fellow-servant doctrine the employer was freed from responsibility for accidents due to the negligence of other employees, "fellow servants,"

even when it was impossible for him to know their character and reputation as in the case of a large factory or of a great railroad.

-- 6. #Development of compensation for accidents#. In some countries of continental Europe, notably Germany and France, the law of employers'

liability was altered in favor of the worker early in the nineteenth century, so as to make compensation more usual and adequate. Since 1885, especially, this liability has been much further extended in many countries and in various directions, and yet the laws of accident compensation still retain many features of the old liability laws and remain in their legal character somewhat apart from the other branches of social insurance. Even in the newer type of "compensation" laws the indemnity paid by employers on account of accident is looked upon as commuted damages, but the old employers' defenses, just named, are abolished or made more difficult to plead. The new plan has the advantages of granting compensation by a schedule fixed in the law, insuring greater certainty, more adequate payments, greater ease of securing redress, and abolis.h.i.+ng the cost of law suits. Still, in most countries and in most states in America, the worker has the option of suing under the old law. In some forty countries the principle of compensation by a prearranged schedule of rates has to some degree replaced that of litigation, and determination by a jury of the damages, in each separate case. The insurance spoken of in relation to accidents is technically that which the employers may or must take to protect themselves against loss, not that which the workman has.

The situation as to compensation in a few leading countries is as follows, the dates given being those of important legislation.

ACCIDENT INSURANCE

_Voluntary_ (as to employers insuring, but compulsory compensation).

Great Britain, 1897, 1906, 1907.

France, 1898, 1907, (compulsory for seamen, 1898, 1905).

Denmark, 1898, 1908.

Belgium, 1903, (voluntary except for miners).

_Compulsory insurance of their risks, by employers_.

Belgium, for miners, 1868.

Germany, 1884, (in employers' a.s.sociations), 1887, 1900, 1911 (voluntary for some cla.s.ses).

Austria, 1887 (as in Germany), 1894 (voluntary for some cla.s.ses).

Norway, 1894 (in a state central insurance office), 1896.

Italy, 1898, 1904.

Holland, 1901 (in the Royal Bank or in private companies).

Sweden, 1901 (as in Norway).

-- 7. #The compensation plan in America#. Under the practical operation of the law of employers' liability in force in any American state until 1911, a very small proportion of the workers injured while at work were legally ent.i.tled to any indemnity, and a still smaller proportion could succeed in recovering any substantial amount.

Employers, and the accident companies with which employers insured, either compromised the claims for small amounts or fought bitterly in the courts the claims of those who refused to compromise. When the courts awarded damages, large or small, a large part of the proceeds went for legal expenses. But a small proportion of the total costs to employers came as benefits to the victims of accidents. It appeared in an extensive investigation of the business of the large industrial insurance companies that but 28 per cent of the premiums paid by employers were paid to workmen as indemnity.

Between 1911 and 1916 the laws have been changed to some extent in their application to selected occupations in at least 34 states and territories of the United States, and covering nearly all but some of the distinctly agricultural states. This remarkable development has been largely actuated and guided by a comparatively small group of socially minded nonworking cla.s.s citizens rather than by either employees or organized workers. It is an encouraging example of what can be done by skilful methods, when conditions are ripe, in furthering righteous social legislation without the use of money or of corrupting influences.

-- 8. #Standards for a compensation law#. The standards which, in detail, in one jurisdiction or another, have already been attained, and which are the provisional ideals now sought by reformers, may be briefly stated as follows.[2] All employments should be included, altho, as yet, there are various exceptions, such as farm labor and domestic service, employers with but few employees (the number excepted being one to five), and nonhazardous employments.

Compensation should be granted for all injuries, suffered in the course of employment, that cause disability beyond a definite waiting period of three to seven days. Compensation should include medical attendance for a limited period, and two-thirds of the estimated loss of wages for disability, either total or partial, during its continuance; and, in case of death, funeral expenses, and from one to two-thirds of the estimated wages, to the widow (or dependent widower) and children, or to other dependent relatives. To secure the full benefit of the plan it must be made the exclusive remedy, replacing entirely the old remedy of suits for negligence. The employer should be required to insure his risk, and general sentiment is moving rapidly toward the plan of a state insurance bureau as the exclusive agency.[3] For the administration of the system an accident and insurance board should be created in each jurisdiction. Experience shows the importance of careful attention to numerous other details, and many amendments will be made as the needs become manifest in practice.

-- 9. #Historical roots of sick-insurance.# Sick-insurance had its origin partly in trade unions and in fraternal societies voluntarily organized by workers, and partly in the system of public poor relief. The voluntary societies were first recognized, regulated, and encouraged by law (in some cases being given state subsidies), and later, in some cases, being made compulsory for some cla.s.ses of members (i.e., such as miners and seamen). On these inst.i.tutions have been built the later state systems of social sick-insurance. This movement had made large headway by the end of the third quarter of the nineteenth century in various European countries. The two systems that are the most typical and influential examples are those of the German Empire and of Great Britain, the former local and the latter national in organization. The British plan of national health insurance promises to be on the whole of the greatest influence upon American opinion and policy. However, the best informed American students favor in some features the more decentralized German rather than the centralized British system. While it is impossible to describe the various systems in detail, the situation in the leading industrial countries of Europe may be indicated as follows.

SICK-INSURANCE

_Voluntary_.

France, 1850, 1898 (voluntary except for miners).

Belgium, 1851, 1894.

Italy, 1886.

Sweden, 1891.

Denmark, 1892.

Holland (authorized private societies and poor relief).

_Compulsory_.

Germany, 1883, 1911 (voluntary for others with earnings of $500).

Austria, 1888 (voluntary for some cla.s.ses).

France, for miners, 1894.

Norway, 1909.

Great Britain, national system 1911 (was voluntary 1875-1911).

-- 10. #Need of sick-insurance in America#. Contrary to the usual opinion in America, the sick-insurance in Germany is, both in amount of contributions collected and in importance to the welfare of the workers and their families, of more importance than is either accident compensation or the system of invalidity pensions. Yet, thus far, our interest and efforts in America have been directed almost entirely toward the reform of accident compensation and almost everything remains to be done in the matter of social insurance against sickness.

It is true that in recent years there has been a rapid development, in some of the larger cities, of medical insurance clubs conducted by private companies, with dues of ten cents weekly. They give medical care in ordinary cases, but require extra payments for surgical treatment and for medical supplies. They as yet touch only the outer fringe of the problem, but they testify to the need and to the increasing desire of the wage-workers for insurance of this kind. It is believed that at least 4 per cent of the income of wage-workers now is expended for the care of sickness and for burial insurance. The losses of wages meantime remain unequalized by insurance indemnities.

A large proportion of the cases of temporary dest.i.tution in ordinarily self-supporting families is due to sickness. The German experience shows that 4 per cent of wages, collected in part from employers and in part from wage-workers, is sufficient to give a far better medical service than can be had through private effort, to give some indemnity for loss of wages, and to carry on a very useful hygienic work for the families and for the public health.

-- 11. #Old-age and invalidity pensions#. Insurance to provide pensions for old-age and permanent (partial or total) disability is in nature but an extension of the insurance against accident and sickness. In a relatively small number of cases accidents result in permanent disability and it is both illogical and inhumane to limit, arbitrarily, the compensation in such cases to a certain period, as two or three years, as is done in many compensation laws. The disability due to advancing years is in nature a chronic illness, inevitable, sooner or later, to all who survive. The movement to provide some indemnity in such cases has been rapid in European countries, doubtless because the problem was a very pressing one where the average earnings are low. In Germany and Austria this development has been more in connection with other forms of insurance; in Denmark, Great Britain, and France it has had more the aspect of an extension of poor relief. In the United States little has been done to provide for these great needs. Ma.s.sachusetts in 1907 authorized savings banks to sell insurance and old-age pensions to those who applied. An increasing number of corporations, especially railroads, are adopting a pension system for men growing old in their service, but nothing has been done of a general public nature toward compulsory and universal protection against these misfortunes.

The following table shows the situation in some of the leading countries:

OLD AGE AND INVALIDITY PENSIONS

_Voluntary_.

Belgium, 1850, 1903 (voluntary except for miners).

Italy, 1898, 1907 (all wage earners).

_Compulsory_.

Belgium, for miners, 1868.

Germany, 1889, 1899, 1911.

Austria, 1889 (miners only); 1906 (office employees).

Denmark, 1891, 1908 (noncontributory).