As always this post is more of a note to self to return to self; I’ve been doing those in a serious (and seriously frustrating, for me anyhow) way a lot recently. Anyways I’m trying to get to know legal terms from the US. Among them, question of law and question of fact. More on this later including more quotes. But for now – questions of law were decided by judges. Questions of fact were decided by juries. Workmen’s compensation tended to mean the end of jury trials, and the regularization of damages – less dynamism, and less deciding power in the hands of jurors. In a sense, then, advocates of workmen’s comp were advocates against juries at least on the issue of employee injuries. I’ll come back to (someone else’s comments on) the fact/law distinction as it pertains to workmen’s comp, and to issues of court jurisdiction. This reminds me I also need to take notes on Friedman on common law and/vs statutory law and attitudes toward each.
Other notes to self:
- look into various attitudes toward and arguments about workmen’s comp in the labor movement and those on the left concerned with the labor movement and the working class (the SP, the IWW, etc)
- legislative limits on employers’ liability; common law limits thereon
- State courts vs federal circuit: out of state ‘citizens’, compare w/ Friedman (and Horwitz?) on law helping foster this and that — seemed to be a legal environment more favorable to multi-state corporation but if so why did big multistate companies get onboard with workmen’s comp?