Illinois damages based on negligence, but he would not be deprived of his common-law defenses. Part 1, §§ 1 and 2. As to outworkers the employer must also either specify in the contract of employment or give notice (which takes effect thirty days after it is given) that Part B of the Compensation Act is not adopted, or he will be liable for compensation or to an action for damages, at the option of the employé. Special attention should be directed to the drastic provisions of § 42 imposing a fine of $100 on employers who have adopted the compensation principle and then fail to comply with the provisions of Part B other than § 30. ILLINOIS The Illinois Act as amended in 1913 makes the right to "compensation" exclusive in all cases where employers and employés have adopted the compensation feature of the statute and have insured compensation payments. The provision of § 3 of the former Act giving the employé the right to elect after the accident to sue for common-law damages if the injury was caused by the "intentional omission of the employer to comply with statutory safety regulations," has been repealed in the Act of 1913. "§ 6. No common-law or statutory right to recover damages for injury or death sustained by any employé while engaged in the line of his duty as such employé other than the compensation herein provided shall be available to any employé who is covered by the provisions of this Act, to any one wholly or partially dependent upon him, the legal representatives of his estate, or any one otherwise entitled to recover damages for such injury." See also § 11. When an injury is caused by the act of a third person the right of the employé to recover compensation or damages against such third person is retained. § 29. Whether the employé recovers directly against such third person or Iowa through an employer from whom he has claimed compensation, the employer is entitled to receive from such third person the amount of the employer's liability for compensation, and the balance of the recovery goes to the employé. § 29. An important change was made in the Act of 1913, which gives the Industrial Board, therein created, power to require employers to assure compensation payments by taking insurance, filing a bond or other security, or demonstrating their financial ability to carry the risk themselves. § 26 (a). If an employer fails to obey an order of the Board in this respect an employé has the right to elect whether he will claim compensation or sue for damages, as to accidents which happen while the employer is in default. § 26 (b). IOWA The Act provides: "§ 3. (a) The rights and remedies provided in this act for an employé on account of an injury shall be exclusive of all other rights and remedies of such employé, his personal or legal representatives, dependents or next of kin, at common law or otherwise on account of such injury; ***” Thus if an employer has taken all the steps required by the Act to adopt the compensation principle, the only remedy of an employé who has also come under the Act, as against the employer is to demand compensation. Employers are brought under the Act by presumption. § 1. That is, if they do nothing they are presumed to have adopted the compensation provision of the statute. But before employers can defeat the right of a workman to elect, after the accident, to sue for common-law damages, without the common-law defenses being available to the employer, the employer must go a step further. He must either insure against his liability for compensation, under § 42, or comply with § 50, in furnishing proof to the Insurance Department Kansas which is satisfactory to both the Insurance Department and the Iowa Industrial Commissioner, of the employer's solvency and financial ability to pay the compensation benefits provided by the Act. If the injury is due to the Act of a third person the employé may take proceedings against that person to recover damages and also against the employer to recover compensation. But the amount payable as compensation will be reduced by the sum recovered as damages. § 7. KANSAS Where both employer and employé have adopted the compensation principle the sole remedy of the workman, as to his employer, is to claim compensation. The language of the Act is not very specific on this subject, but the intent seems to be clear. Section 1 of the Act provides: "If in any employment to which this act applies, personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment is caused to a workman, his employer shall, subject as hereinafter mentioned, be liable to pay compensation to the workman in accordance with this act. Save as herein provided, no such employer shall be liable for any injury for which compensation is recoverable under this act; ***” An additional remedy is given to an employé in cases of wilful or gross negligence on the part of the employer, under § 47, but this seems to apply only when the employer has adopted the compensation principle and the workman has rejected the compensation provision of the statute. If the injury is due to the act of a third person the workman may take proceedings against such third person to recover "damages" and against his employer to recover compensation" for the same injury, "but he shall not be entitled to recover both damages and compensation." § 5. Massachusetts If the workman recovers compensation the employer is subrogated to the rights of the workman to recover damages from the third person. § 5. MARYLAND The claim for compensation is the exclusive remedy of the employé when both employer and employé have adopted the compensation principle, except in the cases specified in § 15 which provides as follows: "A contract of insurance, in pursuance of the terms of this act, shall not relieve the employer from liability for any accident directly due to his failure to supply any safeguard required to be provided for the protection of employés, by or pursuant to any statute or ordinance, or any regulation. under any statute or ordinance, unless it shall have been impossible to comply with such requirement by the time the accident happened, or unless the enforcement thereof has been suspended on order of the court of competent jurisdiction." MASSACHUSETTS When both employer and employé have duly adopted the compensation provision of the statute the sole remedy of the employé is to claim compensation. Part I, § 5. If the employé is injured by reason of the serious and wilful misconduct of the employer "or of any person regularly entrusted with and exercising the power of superintendence," the amount of compensation is doubled. Part II, § 3. See also Part V, § 1, to the effect that the filing of a claim for compensation or submitting a question to arbitration constitutes a waiver of all claims or demands at law, if any. "Where the injury for which compensation is payable under this act was caused under circumstances creating a legal liability in some person other than the subscriber to pay dam Massachusetts ages "The provisions of sections one hundred and twenty-seven to one hundred and thirty-five, inclusive, and of one hundred and forty-one to one hundred and forty-three, inclusive, of chapter five hundred and fourteen of the acts of the year nineteen hundred and nine, and of any acts in amendment thereof, shall not apply to employés of a subscriber while this act is in effect." Part I, § 4. The statute referred to in § 4 above is an employers' liability act containing the provisions usually found in those statutes prior to the enactment of workmen's compensation laws. In this instance the act to which reference is made contains the provisions permitting recovery in case of injuries causing death. If, therefore, an employer, in Massachusetts, has exercised his election to embrace the compensation principle and an employé of such employer has given the proper notice that he refuses to accept compensation, the dependents of such an employé cannot recover from the employer any sum whatsoever because of the death of such employé. See Opinion of Justices, 209 Mass. 607; 96 N. E. Rep. 308; 1 N. C. C. A. 557. A letter to an employer claiming damages for an injury was held not to be an election which precluded the employé from claiming compensation under the Act. McGaffigan v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland, Massachusetts Industrial Accident Board. |