Workers’ compensation laws represent a clear compromise of the opposing interests of employers and employees regarding workplace injuries.
Advocates of workers in the early twentieth century were determined to provide injured workers with more effective relief than they had been able to obtain in the courts under common law. As we have previously discussed, prior to workers’ compensation statutes, employees could only obtain compensation for on-the-job injuries by successfully suing their employers for negligence. It was difficult for employees to win these cases both because courts were reluctant to impose very stringent duties of care on employers toward their employees in the absence of any legislative standards, and because employers were often successful in persuading courts to dismiss employee claims based on the defenses of contributory negligence, assumption of the risk, and the fellow-servant rule. Advocates of workers asserted that it was only fair that employers be forced to bear the full medical expenses incurred by workers injured on the job and to compensate employees for all wages and benefits lost while they were unable to work due to their injury. After all, unsafe workplace conditions caused many injuries, and employers were in a position to pass on the expenses of compensation to customers as a cost of doing business.