If so, how MUCH per week?

And for how MANY weeks?

In case of death, state number of DEPENDENTS.

In case of death, with no dependents, state cost of last sickness and BURIAL.

State TOTAL, to which it will amount for all items, paid

and to be paid.

Was this case submitted to the Judge of the COURT of

Common Pleas for settlement or adjustment?

If so, specify the Court,

If no compensation was or is to be paid to the injured, state grounds for not so doing---

If case is not yet closed, make a second report giving the final figures, at termination of disability, or if death results later. This Department should be notified of any subsequent modification of agreement of award or commutation thereof.

(Signature of firm reporting.)

Printed in copying ink for convenience of persons desiring to retain copy.

§ 261. Form of report by insurance company to commissioner of labor on accident and compensation paid.

(Name of insured employer.)

(P. O. address.)

On second report omit replies to questions answered on first report.

Nature and extent of injury

Cause of accident-

If no compensation was or is to be paid, state grounds for not so doing.

If case is not yet closed, make a second report, giving the final figures, at the termination of disability, or if death results later. This Department should be notified of any subsequent modification of agreement or award, or commutation thereof.

Date of reporting-----

To be forwarded to the Department of Labor, Trenton,

On the___

NEW JERSEY.

(Name of person injured.)
___day of___‒‒

Is this first or second REPORT of this case?

Is there another report of this case to FOLLOW?

Was injured subject to SECTION 1 or 2 of the Liability
Law?

Did the injury REQUIRE medical aid?

Was medical aid SUPPLIED in accordance with law?

State approximate COST of medical aid.

Has, or will, this employé, or dependents, receive
COMPENSATION weekly?

If so, how MUCH per week?

And for how MANY weeks?

In case of death, with no dependents, state cost of last sickness and BURIAL.

State TOTAL to which it will amount for all items, paid and to be paid.

19.

(Signature of Insurance Co.)

CHAPTER XIV.

THE CALIFORNIA WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT.

§ 262. The nature and scope of the act.-The California act is an adaptation of the Wisconsin statute with

slight modifications. Briefly stated, it abolishes the defenses of fellow servant and assumption of risk and establishes the doctrine of comparative negligence in actions for injuries to employés. The employer is denied the right to exemption from liability under contracts, rules or regulations. Where the employer elects to be bound by the statutory compensations and his employé does not notify the employer of his unwillingness to be bound thereby, then the compensation for injury or death is that fixed by the statute unless the injury is due to the personal gross negligence or wilful personal misconduct of the employer or his violation of a statutory duty. Where the injuries are due to these causes, the employé may, at his option, claim compensation under the act or, he may sue his employer and the employer may interpose only the single defense of comparative negligence. Compensation will be denied the employé where the injury is the result of his own wilful misconduct.

§ 263. The California act and its construction by the board. The act is entitled, "An act relating to the liability of employers for injuries or death sustained by their employés, providing for compensation for the accidental injury of employés, establishing an industrial accident board, making an appropriation therefor, defining its powers and providing for a review of its awards." The act was approved April 8, 1911, and became effective September 1, 1911. It provides:

Section 1. In any action to recover damages for a personal injury sustained within this state by an employé while engaged in the line of his duty or the course of his employment as such, or for death resulting from personal injury so sustained, in which recovery is sought upon the ground of want of ordinary or reasonable care of the employer, or of any officer, agent or servant of the employer, the fact that such employé may have been

guilty of contributory negligence shall not bar a recovery therein where his contributory negligence was slight and that of the employer was gross, in comparison, but the damages may be diminished by the jury in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to such employé, and it shall be conclusively presumed that such employé was not guilty of contributory negligence in any case where the violation of any statute enacted for the safety of employés contributed to such employé's injury; and it shall not be a defense:

(1) That the employé either expressly or impliedly assumed the risk of the hazard complained of.

(2) That the injury or death was caused in whole or in part by the want of ordinary or reasonable care of a fellow servant.

Note by board-The foregoing section abolishes the common-law doctrine of assumption of risk and the fellow-servant rule, and modifies the defense of contributory negligence, thereby increasing the liability of the employer in excess of 300 per cent.

This portion of the act is not elective and applies to every employer. In an action at law, there is no limit placed upon the amount of damages that may be recovered for personal injuries sustained. If, however, an employer elects the compensation schedule fixed by the succeeding sections of the act, the amount that may be recovered by an injured employé is limited to the scale of compensation specified in section 8 of the act. In determining whether or not he will elect compensation, a prudent employer will take into consideration his increased liability, the present tendency of the courts and juries to allow heavy damages for personal injuries, and the fact that the ordinary indemnity insurance is limited to $5,000 for a single injury and to $10,000 where more than one person is hurt through a single accident. The New York Commission investigated two hundred and thirty-four fatal cases, and found that 2.1 per cent. of the recoveries allowed were in excess of $5,000. Statistics show that when an accident causes permanent disability, a larger sum is awarded the injured than is paid where the accident results in death. This is exemplified by the recent decision of the Supreme Court of the State of California, affirming a judgment for $70,000, which, together with accrued interest and costs, amounted to $92,000. These instances plainly show that insurance under the old system of employers' liability is wholly inadequate, and that