WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS LIABILITY INSURANCE
Every state has special laws to provide immediate medical and surgical care to workers injured in occupational accidents. In addition, those laws require financial compensation for the worker’s loss of earnings if he or she is disabled due to those injuries and death benefits to the surviving spouse and children if the injury is fatal. Workers compensation law in each state also includes coverage for occupational diseases and workers are entitled to compensation for disability due to those diseases, as well as for occupational injuries sustained on the job.
There are important differences in the provisions of the workers compensation law in the various states. However, the one common and basic principle is that the economic burden of occupational injuries is charged to the cost of production and the employer, not to the worker.
Current workers compensation law evolved over many years. Originally, a worker injured in the course of employment could collect for those injuries only if he or she could prove that the injury was due to the employer’s negligence and that the worker did not contribute to the injuries through any act of his or her own negligence.
In reality, the injured worker was usually in a worse position than a member of the general public bringing suit for damages. The worker was reluctant to sue the employer, especially if the injuries were not severe and if the worker wanted to continue working for the same employer. If the worker did want to sue, the costs of attorneys, identifying witnesses, developing evidence, and the litigation itself usually eliminated that course of action. Even cases that involved the employer’s gross negligence were extremely difficult to prove, especially when the best witnesses were fellow employees reluctant to testify against their employer.
These practical considerations stood in the way of many suits succeeding. In addition, employers had several special defenses available to them. They could deny negligence or use the doctrine of contributory negligence and contend that the injured worker contributed to the accident by an act of active negligence. The employer could cite the fellow servant or fellow worker rule and argue that the employee was injured through the active negligence of a fellow employee. The employer could also make a case that the injured employee had agreed to assume the risks of the occupation and took them into account when he or she accepted the position at the wages offered under the doctrine of assumption of risk. With each of these defenses, the employer could argue for not being liable for any damages to the injured employee.
The development of large-scale heavy industry at the beginning of the 20th century led to significant increases in the number of industrial accidents. Many states enacted employers liability acts that modified or repealed the fellow servant rule and the doctrine of assumption of risk. In some cases, the defense offered by contributory negligence was reduced and the less demanding comparative negligence rule replaced it.
Despite improvements in the worker’s position through these and other socially minded laws, years of expensive litigation might still be involved before the worker could recover damages for injuries and lost time. During those extended periods, it was unlikely that the worker could afford the costs of either litigation or proper medical attention. It became increasingly clear that employee compensation for occupational injuries sustained on the job could not be resolved through the courts and findings of negligence and fault if the injuries were to be treated promptly and the injured worker’s lost time properly indemnified.
