SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC RESULTS OF ACCIDENTS.

An individual investigation to determine the social and economic conditions of families deprived by industry of their breadwinners was made in 86 cases The results, as compiled in table No. 9, show that nearly fifty-six per cent of the widows were compelled to go to work, and at an average weekly wage of $5.51. Altogether in these homes there were 178 children, about seventy per cent of whom were under twelve; fifty-nine per cent of the others were forced to go to work. The wretched conditions in which some of these families were found cannot be depicted by means of tables. On page 15 are a few concrete cases, none of them extreme, but given in the exact order as investigated.

PER CENT RECEIVING SETTLEMENT IN NON-FATAL CASES

As intimated at the outset the investigation of non-fatal accidents pertained only to those cases which were taken into the courts for redress. Unless this fact is borne in mind table No. 10 showing the per cent receiving settlement in suits begun during 1906 and 1907, may be misleading. It will be observed that about eighty per cent of the cases terminated in favor of the plaintiff. More recent periods were not considered because of the large number of pending cases. When it is remembered that about four-fifths of the non-fatal industrial accident cases never come into court at all, the significance of these high percentages becomes small indeed.

TABLE X.

PER CENT RECEIVING SETTLEMENT IN NON-FATAL CASES THROUGH THE COURTS.

This takes no account of those cases which did not come into court.

DELAY IN SETTLEMENT IN NON-FATAL CASES.

Table No. 11 represents the average delay in settlement of the non-fatal cases and the average delays with reference to the amounts of settlement within specified limits. As was found to be true of the fatal cases, so in the non-fatal cases, the delay bears no relation to the amount of settlement. The average delay in the Court of Common Pleas was one year and nine months; in the United States Circuit Court one year and five months.

The exact legal record of two cases follows the table, showing what is possible and actually occurs under the present system:

TABLE XI.

DELAY IN SETTLEMENT OF NON-FATAL CASES AS SHOWN BY COURT RECORDS.

(a) MEMORANDUM IN RE PERSONAL INJURY SUIT ENTITLED,—

SAM R. BROOKS,* Plaintiff, against SMITH AND SMITH BROS.,* a corporation, 1908, before Judge and a jury.

This case was instituted by the filing of a Petition in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, Ohio, on the 9th day of January, 1906, being Cause No. 100,334. The Plaintiff was a former employee of the Defendant company, a corporation operating in the City of Cleveland, Ohio. The action was one for damages on account of injuries sustained by him as a result of the alleged negligence of the Defendant in permitting exposed cog wheels to exist on certain of its machinery, in violation of the Statute and in the foreman's peremptorily instructing the Plaintiff to go between two certain rows of machines, among which machines were these unprotected cogs. The usual issues were made up, wherein the Defendant pleaded contributory negligence.

The case came up for trial in its regular order on the 12th day of February, 1908, before Judgeand a jury. Before the Plaintiff had finished his case the trial Judge suggested to the attorneys for the Defendant that a motion to direct a verdict would be sustained by him. See Supreme Court Record of evidence, page 68, where the exact language of the Court appears in the following statement, to-wit:

The Court: "Do you intend to introduce a motion, Mr.

The record shows further that in reply to that statement counsel for the Plaintiff said to the court as follows: "If the Court will give me leave to call up my office I want to phone my partner to bring some authorities we have, because I did not expect a motion before we tried our case."

Nevertheless, following the suggestion of the Trial Court a motion to direct a verdict for the Defendant at this stage of the case was made and granted by the Court.

Motion by Plaintiff for new trial was of course overruled and proceedings in error forthwith prosecuted to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga County. On June 8, 1908, upon hearing of the proceedings in error the Circuit Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas and remanded the cause for a new trial upon the sole ground that the trial court erred in directing a verdict in favor of the Defendant.

Then the Defendant prosecuted error to the Supreme Court of Ohio and on September 10, 1908, filed its Petition in Error in Cause No. 11,551 on the General Docket of the Supreme Court of Ohio. In due season briefs were made up and that case has never been reached up to this date. It is still pending in the Supreme Court of Ohio and the Plaintiff never had a trial. It is apparent that even if the judgment of the Circuit Court is sustained sometime in the early part of the year 1911, five years will have been consumed to ascertain that the Plaintiff in the case ought to have a trial. He will then be in the same position that he was on the day that he commenced to present his case and it is plain to be seen that this is a case that can be pending in Court for a period of ten years and longer under the present slow system of procedure in the Courts of Ohio.

(b) MEMORANDUM IN RE PERSONAL INJURY SUIT ENTITLED.

GRANT L. JONES,* Plaintiff against FRANK Low,* et al., Partners doing business under the firm name and style of "Frank Low & Sons." Defendants.

*Names of plaintiff and defendant substituted.