Home > Journals > Michigan Law Review > MLR > Volume 10 > Issue 5 (1912)
Abstract
It is proposed to present to the readers of the Michigan Law Review, the economic and legal basis for the substitution of a new remedy, namely, compulsory industrial insurance for workingmen, in lieu of the common and statutory liability law remedies, as a means for compensating workmen who are injured in the due course of their employment. In Part I, it will be shown not only that the common (and liability) law remedy in its present form does not furnish compensation of any kind in to exceed 12% of the cases of injuries to employees, and even in those cases in which compensation is paid; the compensation paid does not on the average exceed one-fifth of what is regarded as adequate compensation, but also that no modification of the common law remedy can be made whereby these results will be materially improved. Hence that the old common law remedy must be abandoned and a new remedy substituted therefor. In Part II, we shall give an analysis of the legal principles involved in the substitution of compulsory industrial insurance for workmen in lieu of the common and statutory liability laws as a remedy for compensating workmen who are injured in the due course of their employment-for example, an analysis of the legal principles which lie at the foundation of the Ohio Workmen's Compensation Act, along with a brief resume of the fundamental provisions of compensation acts for workmen in other States of America.
Recommended Citation
James H. Boyd,
The Economic and Legal Basis of Compulsory Industrial Insurance for Workmen I,
10
Mich. L. Rev.
345
(1912).
Available at:
https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol10/iss5/1