LIABILITY OF EMPLOYERS.
Mr. COOPER, from the Committee on Rights and Privileges reported that they had under consideration the bill [H. R. 29] fixing the liability of employers for injuries to employees, and recommend its indefinite postponement.
Mr. CARTER thought it a very important bill, and moved that it be referred to the Judiciary Committee for their consideration.
Mr. COOPER said the bill had been before their Committee at two meetings, and they considered the bill one that should not pass. It is peculiar in its provisions. It is a bill which, If it should become a law, would be unfair to the employer and unfair to the employe. There is a provision in the bill which implies that a party who employs an agent shall be liable for the negligence of the agent, without any knowledge on his part. page: 91[View Page 91] Such legislation would be injurious to the manufacturer, and I trust that the bill will not be again referred.
Mr. SWEITZER said he was in business himself, and though if such a law passed it would squelch the manufacturing interests of the State, for the reason that when an employe receives an injury in any way, the penalty provided in this law is so heavy as to bankrupt the manufacturer. He hoped the bill would never pass.
Mr. MOODY concurred in the report as read. In case a servant is injured by reason of negligence of the employer, the responsibility is limited. The employer is liable to this extent: To three times the amount of wages paid to the employee. He was satisfied there are bad features in the bill but would favor its reference to the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. CARTER did not desire to injure the manufacturing interests of the State, but, on the contrary, would do what he could to encourage that interest. There is a simple act of justice in this bill.
Mr. COLE hoped the bill would not be summarily disposed of,as he believed the bill has many good points that ought to be considered. It seems an act of simple justice to require an employer to be responsible for injuries to his employes.
Mr. DAVIS thought it would be well to have this bill recommitted, though not in favor of the bill or any of its provisions.
Mr. NEFF had as much regard for the manufacturing interests as anybody, and would be the last man to throw obstructions in its way: but after having heard remarks thereon, believed there are some good features in the bill. There ought to be some remedy in certain cases, whether this bill is looking in that direction or not. He opposed indefinite postponement.
On motion by Mr. CAUTHORNE, the bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee.
