« PreviousContinue »
TABLE 11.-CAUSES OF ACCIDENTS; PER CENT OF PERSONS KILLED OR INJURED
AND BY INDUS
28 | Paper making: 1907.
(793 cases).. 1897.
(592 cases). 29 Paper products: 1907
(500 cases).. 1897.
(271 cases).. 30 Leather: 1907.
.(537 cases).. 1897.
(292 cases).. 31-34 Woodworking: 1907
.(5,280 cases).. 1897
.(2,868 cases).. 35 Flour milling: 1907.
.(1,027 cases).. 1897
.(1,007 cases).. 36 Food products: 1907
.(789 cases). 1897.
-(340 cases).. 37 Sugar: 1907.
.(508 cases).. 1897.
.(509 cases).. 38 Dairying, distilling, and starch: 1907.
(409 cases).. 1897
(360 cases).. 39 Brewing and malting: 1907.
.(1,608 cases).. 1897.
.(1,142 cases).. 40 Tobacco: 1907
.(81 cases).. 1897
.(57 cases).. 41 Clothing: 1907
(676 cases).. 1897.
(295 cases).. 42 Chimney sweeping: 1907
(34 cases).. 1897
(38 cases).. 43-54 Building trades (not including institutes): 1907
(11,031 cases).. 1897.
.(7,930 cases).. 55 Printing and publishing: 1907
(428 cases).. 1897.
(252 cases).. 56 Private railways:
(168 cases).. 1897
(125 cases). . 57 Street and small railroads: 1907
(485 cases). 1897
(168 cases).. 58 Express and storage: 1907
(3,932 cases).. 1897
.(1,426 cases).. 59 Livery, drayage, cartage, etc.: 1907
(2,500 cases).. 1897.
(1,242 cases). 60-62 Inland navigation: 1907
(753 cases). 1897.
(527 cases). . 63 Marine navigation (not including institute): 1907.
...(459 cases). 1897
(397 cases).. 64 Engineering, excavating, etc. (not including
-(1,226 cases).. 65 Meat products: 1907.
.(1,120 cases). 1897
BY ACCIDENTS COMPENSATED FOR THE FIRST TIME, 1907 AND 1897, BY CAUSES TRIES-Continued.
2.68 2. 43
6. 79 5.78
TABLE 11.-CAUSES OF ACCIDENTS: PER CENT OF PERSONS KILLED OR INJURED
AND BY INDUS
Establishments of the naval administration:
.. (105 cases).
(86 cases). Establishments of the military administration: 1907
. (190 cases)..
.(2,233 cases). .
(5 cases). .
1 Included in associations 4-11.
PROPORTION OF ACCIDENTS DUE TO THE FAULT OF THE EMPLOYER, OF
THE WORKMAN, ETC.
Table 12 shows the per cent of accidents compensated for the first time in 1907 and in 1897, distributed in the proportion of those due to the fault of the employer, those due to the fault of the workman, and those due to four other specified causes. It is freely admitted that it was no easy task to decide which party was at fault in an accident, and therefore the per cents in the table are subject to some degree of uncertainty. The table does, however, give in a general way reliable information as to the party at fault, and the data as here compiled are regarded, both in Germany and in other countries, as entirely trustworthy. It is necessary to make a few statements in explanation of the terms used at the head of the table in order to clearly define what is meant by the fault in each case.
The accidents due to the fault of the employer include three classes: First, “defective apparatus, arrangements, etc.,” includes accidents caused by faults in the plant generally, in the machinery, in poor or inadequate maintenance of the buildings or machinery; the employ
BY ACCIDENTS COMPENSATED FOR THE FIRST TIME, 1907 AND 1897, BY CAUSES TRIES-Conclud ed.
ment of poor material; imperfect methods of work, especially the instructions given workmen; the use of loosely fastened parts of the plant, such as poor stairways, ladders, etc.; insufficient lighting of the workrooms, failure to remove snow or ice from the working places, etc.; second,“ absence of or defective safety appliances” includes the failure to use proper apparatus, such, for instance, as one prescribed by the regulations of the association or one which is customary in the industry; and, third, “absence of or defective regulations, supervision, etc.," includes cases of imperfect management, insufficient number of supervisors, detailing unsuitable, especially youthful, workers for tasks which are beyond their powers or for tasks which are especially dangerous, etc. The term “fault of the employer” includes also the acts of foremen, supervisors, managers, etc.
The accidents due to the fault of the workmen are classified into five groups: First, “lack of skill, inattention, or carelessness," includes accidents due to lack of ordinary skill or lack of ordinary care or caution which may reasonably be expected of a workman and includes the number of accidents which are generally comprised
under the designation of carelessness due to the zeal in work or to lack of forethought or failing to keep in mind the danger of the operations, etc.; in general these accidents are not of great importance, the more serious cases being included in the other classes under "acts contrary to rules, regulations, etc.;" second,“failure to use safety appliances or removal of same" includes instances where the workman has either not used the prescribed apparatus or has not used it in the prescribed manner or has (contrary to regulations) entirely removed it; third, “acts contrary to rules, regulations, etc.," includes cases where the workman consciously disobeys existing rules for the prevention of the accident, rules established by law or official regulations, or rules established by the employer or his representative; fourth, "horseplay, mischief, intoxication, etc.," includes those acts usually understood by these terms; fifth, "unsuitable clothing" includes accidents due to wearing of loose overalls, fluttering aprons, neckcloths, ribbons, unsuitable footgear, having the hair arranged in high coiffures, etc.
The third group includes accidents due to the fault of the employer and of the workman at the same time and includes cases where accidents would have been included in those due to some of the causes already mentioned.
The fourth group includes accidents caused by fellow workmen or by a third party, but not including the employer.
The fifth group includes accidents in which no one was at fault; it especially includes accidents due to the general hazard of the industry, such as in case where, according to the present development of protective appliances and by the use of all reasonable supervision, the accident still occurs.
The last group includes accidents due to “other causes” and refers especially to cases where the accident has been caused by an act of God, such as lightning, sudden storm, etc., or due to other unforeseen occurrences or to the workman suddenly becoming ill and the like.
The distribution of the total number of accidents among the various causes shows that 12.06 per cent were due to the fault of the employer, 41.26 per cent to the fault of the workman, and 37.65 per cent to the general hazard of the industry. The most interesting fact presented by the table is the showing that the proportion due to the fault of the employer has decreased; that the proportion due to the general hazard of the industry has also decreased; and that the proportion due to the fault of the workman has increased in 1907 as compared with 1897. The report states that this change in the proportion is due to the introduction of preventive measures, safety appliances, etc.; this is shown especially in the columns marked “defective apparatus, arrangements, etc.,” and “the absence of or defective safety appliances.” In the accidents due to the fault of the employer, where, in connection with motors, transmission apparatus, working machinery,