Document Eq40Jx2oYbrxOLKOk6vmD8Ojb

* money are spent on fully-equipped hospitals in the plants and in the office buildings. They, have periodical examinations made of their employees. They have safety programs and training programs for the supervisors in the plants. All in all. industrial medicine has become a large part of the medical profeht6B"8Hd a very important cog in an industrial organi sation. 1 know from experience that the presidents of some of the divisions of large corporations pat up trophies to be competed for by the plants to see who can have the least lost-time accidents over a period. 'While the accident statistics may not besr out the statements that have been made, nevertheless, there is that consciousness and a striving all the time for bettering their record: and I think the rec ords over-all are being bettered every year. As long as employers are conscious of this safety and what it will gain, not only in a monetary way, bnt in a happy, well-knit organization, they are not going to let up just because they have arrived at some degree of safety. I feel that is the philosophy today. MODERATOR AHEARN: Thank you. Now we will move on to another question: "Haw there been recently substantial changes in the law respecting the liability of a manufacturer to one injured by his product!" MR. BA1LE: That term "recently" is a relative term. If I would treat it as meaning in this century. I would say yes. there have been what you might call substantial changes, a change in concept end a change in application of principle. Prior to 1916. generally in this country, yon would have heard the rule stated that a manufacturer has no liability for injuries re sulting from the use of his product beyond persons who are in direct contractual relations with him. In 1916. by ihc famous decision of -^SGt4ce-Cardoza,.4kai .principle was finally broken down and in lieu of it was adopted the mle: if a manufacturer would recognize that a defectively made product of his involved an unreasonable risk of barm to remote users or persons in the vicinity of remote users, that then he was under duty to make it carefully and from that has grown the general principle now. that manufacturers, are, in the main, liable for defects in their pmdurts or for hazards against which they can guard, even to those persons who have no contractual relationship with them. Probably more inijtorlant Ilian that has been the change in the application of that ralp. Needless to say. in any claim hv remote users against a manufacturer, the problem of causation is a serious one. A [264] manufacturer n: through many 1 of time before i' is then to deten manufacturer u years our court: If there has bee"-* courts--and I a unfortunate tei tionahle proof o two main ehan changes and ha manufacturer. MR. OVI.4 contractual rela the courts are little too far. h has opened a n is all right n I MODERA go mi to ilie n process eqniprr terial in order MR. HAT but we don't 1 great possibilit to one of relal of process eqi: than to work t it. that it she along the line right land of industrial hyg with hazard cc secondary men redesign of i eontrol. There ore necessary pn equipment to and to accept