(Extract from the First Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the Labour Children in Factories.)
From the evidence collected, it appears that in many of the mills, numerous accidents of a grievous nature do occur to the workpeople. It appears also that these accidents may be prevented, since in some mills where more care of the workpeople is in general displayed they are prevented. It appears further, that whilst some manufacturers liberally contribute to the relief of the sufferers, many other manufacturers leave them to obtain relief from public bounty, or as they may.
The refusal to contribute to the expense of the cure of those who have been maimed is usually founded on the assertion that the accident was occasioned by culpable heedlessness or temerity. In the cases of the children of tender years, we do not consider this a valid defence against the claim for contribution from the employer. We cannot suppose an obligation to perpetual caution and discretion imposed on children at an age when those qualities do not usually exist. The indiscretion of children must, we consider, be presumed and guarded against as a thing that must necessarily, and to a greater or less extent, be manifested by all of them.
But the accidents which occur to the adults, are of themselves evidence (unless they were wilfully incurred in a state of delirium) that the individual used all the caution of which he is capable; as it may be presumed that the loss of life or limb, or the infliction of severe pain, would rarely be wantonly incurred.
Some of the manufacturers have proposed that the inspectors, who they think ought to be appointed to insure compliance with any legislative regulation, should have power to inspect the factories, and direct what parts of the machinery should be fenced off, and that after such directions have been complied with, the manufacturer should be relieved from further responsibility.
We concur in the proposition for giving such power to inspectors, but we do not concur in the proposal to relieve the manufacturer from responsibility.
We apprehend that no inspector would probably be so fully conversant with all the uses of every variety of machinery as to be acquainted with all the dangers which may be provided against; and also, that whilst there is much machinery which does not, from its nature, admit of its being boxed off, there is much that could not be made entirely safe without the reconstruction of whole manufactories.
Excluding from consideration the cases of culpable temerity on the part of the adults, and assuming that the aid to be given when accidents do occur shall afford no bounty on carelessness, the cases which remain for provision are those of adults which may be considered purely accidental. Taking a case of this class, where mischief has occurred in the performance of the joint business of the labourer and his employer; the question is, by which of these parties the pecuniary consequences of such mischief shall be sustained.
We conceive that it may be stated, as a principle of jurisprudence applicable to the cases of evils arising from causes which ordinary prudence cannot avert, that responsibility should be concentrated, or, as closely as possible, apportioned on those who have the best means of preventing the mischief. Unless we are to impose on the workman the obligation of perpetual care and apprehension of danger, the nature of the injuries inflicted are of themselves evidence that all the care which can be taken by individuals attending to their work is taken by them; it is only the proprietor of the machinery who has the most effectual means of guarding against the dangers attendant upon its use.
If such an extent of pecuniary responsibility for the accidents which are incidental to the use of the machines is imposed upon him, those consequences will be more likely to be taken into account, and to be guarded against at the time of the erection of the machinery. The workmen are not prone to regard immediate dangers, still less dangers which are remote and contingent, and many of the accidents are of a nature apparently too uncertain to form data for insurance. It could hardly be expected that a workman in entering a manufactory should object that any portion of the machinery is dangerous, and that it ought to be boxed off. But the proprietor of the machine is necessarily the person who can best foresee all the consequences incidental to its use, and can best guard against them. By throwing upon him a portion of the pecuniary responsibility for those mischiefs, we combine interest with duty, and add to the efficiency of both.