Index to Periodicals "These cases show a distinct revulsion from the conception that fault is essential to liability. The defendant, himself innocent, is held liable because, by causing, for his own purposes, dangerous work to be done, he is the author of
the harm caused by its performance without the precautions necessary to secure the safety of others. This is a distinct reversion to the earlier conceptions that he who causes harm, however innocently, is, as its author, bound to make it good. They seem to be the result of one of those illogical compromises between conflicting conceptions which are inevitable where the public sense of justice, havin changed with a change in economic and socia opinion,
leads the court to feel its way to the abandon ment of some long accepted conception, now felt, though perhaps only vaguely, to be no longer tenable or satisfactory. Such compromises are the usual indication of a transition period in the development of the law, in which it is
seeking to adapt itself to new conditions and to accommodate itself to a changed public sense of what is 'ust and desirable.
It cannot beex ected,
nor in t e writer's opinion is it desirable, t at the principles announced therein should find a permanent
lace in the law: they seem rather
to be a bri ge between the old conception and some new solution of the problem of the proper distribution of the loss necessarily caused by the individual activities of civilized mankind, each in pursuit of his own interests. And as no one indefinitely remains upon a bridge, but either passes over it upon his way or returns to the
317
ment the central problem of his inquiry, which aims to settle the following questions: — "First: The purpose is to show the resent situation with respect to uniformity o inter pretation of the same sections of the Act by different state courts. "Second: The purpose is to discuss the ques tion whether, if uniformity is being accomplished, the resulting rule of law is desirable. “Third: To int out some of the variations between the ct as originally recommended and the Act as adopted in several states, or modified by subsequent legislation. "Fourth: The general utility of codification (apart from the possibility of uniformity of interpretation) in the light of the interpretation of the Act. "Fifth: Those changes in the Act by amend ment or repeal of certain sections now needed in the interest of uniformity." "A Plea Against Playing a Lone Hand in Workmen's Compensation Legislation in Illi nois." Editorial. By J. H. Wligmore]. 5 Illinois Law Review 571 (Apr.). "Senate Bill No. 283, for a workmen's com pensation system in Illinois, has been reported out favorably from committee. . . . It is one of the good bills among man such now pending in many states. But it oug t not to pass now. And ve rbills reason that there are so states. many otherthe good now ispending in other
shore he has left, so it is to be expected that the courts, which have in these cases parted company
consin Massachusetts, and a few Minnesota, other great Indiana, industrial Ohio,states Wis~
with the idea that no person need make good
are all now considering such bills. They all differ, however, in vital provisions and in details of phrasing which affect the sec of the risk covered. This wide variation 15 their great defect, and a dangerous one. Uniformity is the most desirable single feature in such legislation. And no two of them are identical in a single one of the dozen essential principles involved. "The danger is—- yes, the certainty is — that confusion will be ‘worse confounded’if these bills pass now. Industry is now on a basis of uniform
the loss he innocently causes, will either return
to that principle, abandoning the position they now occupy. or that they will go on in the path on which they have started and will work out some new principle for the distribution of the loss, which will satisfy the more highly socialized modern sense of justice." Uniformity of Law. "The Uniform Ne gotiable Instruments Law: Is it Producing Uni formity and Certainty in the Law Merchant?" By Crawford D. Hening. 59 Univ. of Pa. Law Review 471 (Apr.). Section 14 of the Act, relating to the title of the holder of paper executed in blank and filled up by an a ent of the maker in violation of his authority. been variously interpreted, the Supreme Court of Iowa intergeting in exactly the opposite way from the nglish Court of Appeals’ interpretation of the same clause in the English Act. This episode "exemplifies one of the constant dangers of codification. If ri hts are limited by a code to a certain class 0defi‘iieition rsons there and that class is defined a code is constant danger inlest the
conditions.
law in all these states.
There are no state lines;
the cleavage goes on entirely different lines. The industries compete on conditions which have nothing to do with state lines. To change the basis of liability on state lines alone is merely to add new burdens without removing the present ones, and to offer to emplo ees a vain relief from present inequities. he whole purpose of the progressive legislation is to sub stitute a basis of unqualified industrial risk instead of a basis of qualified dama e-liability for fault.
makers of the code have made the code-defini tion too restricted and thereby have excluded from the class those who previously had enjoyed the rights thereafter limited to the code-defined class.’ Other sections of the Act which have been variously construed are discussed. The writer does not reach in this first install
The same market, the same machin
ery, the same wage scales, the same unions, the same employers’ associations, the same insurance companies, affect the liability under present
The two cannot co-exist; t e'y would
cripple the industry, and the present crude system of injury-litigation would remain un abated. Until several leading states can 80 on the new basis together and with fair uniform ity, it is useless to expect any real alleviation
"This uniformity is bound to come, In a shol’t year or two. Give the states a chance to 8"
together. The first time they ever got together
