If the pecuniary consequences from unavoidable accidents were considerable, the imposition of the proposed responsibility may be met by the master, or by a deduction from the wages. Considering the defective nature of most existing modes of provision against sickness and casualties by benefit or friendly societies, and also, unhappily, the large proportion of those who, from improvidence, do not take advantage of these or other means, (of which some portion of the working-class avail themselves in so exemplary and admirable a manner), if we were to devise a form of insurance against the casualties in question, available to all classes, we should recommend that measures should be taken to secure from the master the regular deductions of the amount of the contribution of the persons employed.
We propose that in the case of all accidents whatsoever from machinery occurring to children under fourteen years of age, the proprietor of the machinery shall pay for the medical attendance on the child, and all the expenses of the cure, until medical attendance is no longer required; and also during the same period, shall continue to pay wages at the rate of half the wages enjoyed by the individual in question at the time of the occurrence of the accident.
We are of opinion that persons above that age, in all cases where the injury was received from accidents in the ordinary course of business, where there was no culpable temerity, should receive similar treatment at the expense of the employer, and should also be allowed half wages until the period of cure, as we believe that an allowance of full wages would occasion considerable fraud in the protraction of that period, especially in the cases of accidents of a less serious nature.
We think that the remedy should be given on complaint before a magistrate or the inspector.
“With regard to fatal injuries occasioned by wilful negligence, we have at present no new remedies to suggest as substitutes to those afforded by the common law.”
[In a recent case, I believe in Scotland, 300l. damages were recovered against the owner of an old mine for the loss of a child, which had fallen into it accidentally from the opening not being properly protected.
It is sometimes stated that the owners of mines already come within the principle, that they are interested in prevention, inasmuch as they incur loss from the stoppage of work and otherwise by accidents. The fact, however, of no exertions being made for prevention might be adduced as proof that the share of the loss was not sufficiently great, and the interest therefore inadequate; but it will generally be found that no share of the loss falls directly on the manager of the works, and that the pecuniary consequences are so far diffused over numerous partners as not to be felt, and that this is so particularly in works or machinery belonging to joint-stock companies.
In Prussia, as well as Austria, deductions are required by the law to be made from the wages of the men engaged in mining operations, which deductions constitute a sick-fund for the support of the men during ordinary sickness. The following is a translation of the articles of the Prussian code in respect to the responsibility now imposed on the owners for accidents to the workpeople in Prussia as in Austria:—
Art. 214. “The proprietors of the mines are bound to take care of the miners who are wounded or fall into bad health in their service.
Art. 215. “When the provincial laws do not contain any express provisions thereon, the person who works the mine shall pay to the sick or wounded workman four weeks’ wages if the produce of the mine does not cover the expense of working, or if it be only just equal to it, or if it be required to defray the antecedent expenses of the mine; and when the mine produces a sufficient dividend, the workman shall be paid eight weeks’ wages in case the illness lasts that length of time.