EMPIKIC. 52 EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY. diced observation of nature; and thought that, by a careful collection of observed facts forming a history, the coincidence of man -lions would lead to unalterable prescriptions for cer- tain cases. The later adherents of the school excluded all theoretical stud}', even that of anatomy, and were guided solely by tradition and their individual experience. By an empiric in medicine is now understood a man who, from want of theoretical knowledge, prescribes reme- dies by guess according to the name of the disease or to individual symptoms, without knowledge of the pathological conditions, the chemical changes occurring, or the individuality of the patient; in other words, a quack. Many so-called 'specific medicines' arc administered on this principle, or want of principle. EMPIB/ICISM (Gk. t/tireipia, empciria, ex- perience, from i/i—eipos, empeiros, skilled in). The philosophical view that sense-experience is the source of all knowledge. It denies the ex- istence of any a priori (q.v.) constituents in knowledge, maintaining that at first the mind is a tabula rasa, or clean slate, upon which ex- perience must inscribe all the characters. These inscriptions come one by one, and what seems to be a necessary connection appears so only from the habit we have formed of, within experience, associating certain elements together. The lists in antiquity were empiricists, and Eng- lish thinkers have as a rule maintained empir- icist views, i Sec LOCKE; HuMJE; -Mill, James ; Mill. John Stu art.) For a criticism on em- piricism, see Knowledge, Theory OF. Mere noth- ing more Deed be said than that the fault of em- piricism is no1 that it traces all knowledge back to experience. I.ut thai it give- a wrong account of experience, representing it as a piecemeal affair. See, also, Criticism; Rationalism. EMPIS, iiVpo'. Adoi.i'iii: DOMINIQl i: I'i.orent en Simonis ( 17!t">-lSi;S] . French dram- atist, born in Paris. From 1856 to 1859 he was administrator of the Theatre Francais. He is the author of a number of plays which have D praised for their natural style, their dra- matic situations, and their fine study of char- Chi i product ions include ; Both ici 11 i 1824 i ; l.n darm < I la <!■ moisi lit i 1836) ; Un ohangemeni de ministere (1831); ' n jeune nd I's si.r femmes de Henri I III. i 18 i EMPLOYEES' LIABILITY. In general, the liability of employers for in juri u Mined by wot i men ti Kile in i aeii employ and owii their negligence. (See Neqlioenci : Torn I i Bca My. t lie expres ion i most frequent l. employed to di eci nt Ij i n acted in England and the I nited States, with the object of defining and enla i ging thi i law liability. A |" i generally liable, no! only for his luii indirectly for Well, il i up- q employee, Inju n • qui nci i i i thi part ol In- cm ■ i would !"■ ■■ni it led , | | .... i n . tied, r.ui the nature ! i I ion and the '■ : ' i led uliar rule limiting the lin em ■ employei - as di t inguis'hed i - other persons exposed to injury from the manner in which the business is carried on. This rule is to the effect that an employee, on entering upon his service, implicitly engages with his employer to run all the ordinary risks of the service, includ- ing the risk of negligence on the part of his fel- low servants. The employer is, of course, liable for gross negligence, and for novel and extraor- dinary risks involved in the service, as well as for all acts of negligence, whether of the master or of fellow servants, occurring outside the regular sen ice; he is bound to use due diligence in select- ing his superintendents, foremen, and other ser- . ints. to furnish them with suitable appliances and a safe and proper place in which to carry on their work. But here his responsibility stops. It makes no difference whether the negligent fellow si rvant through wdiose fault an injury is sus- tained is a foreman, whose orders the injured servant was bound to obey, or a fellow- servant in the ordinary sense, working side by side with the injured man. The 'risk' voluntarily assumed by the man who enters another's employ covers "all persons engaged under the same employer for the purposes of the same business, however different in detail those purposes may be." With the change in the relations of employer and employee, due to the transformation of in- dustrial conditions in recent years, these rules of the common law have taken on a harsh and arbi- trary aspect, which under older conditions they did not present. They have accordingly been modified by legislation, both in England and the United States. The earliest statute of this sort was the 'Employers' Liability Act,' passed bv l'arliament in 1880 (43 and 4t Vict., c. 42), with the avowed object of extending and regulating the liability of employers to make compensation for personal injuries suffered by workmen in their service. It effected this object by exempting. cer- tain classes of workmen from the common-law doctrine, putting them in much the same position with respect to their employer as that occupied by an outsider, and by excluding from the defi- nition of fellow servants foremen and others ex- ercising authority over the injured employee, making the employer liable for the acts of those exercising a delegated authority under him. It also abolished the immunity of persons and cor- !"■ n- operating railroads in all cases of in- jury suffered by railroad employees in conse- quence of collisions and other railroad accidents. This statute was followed in L897 and 1900 by the Workmen's Compensation Acts (.60 and (il Vict., c. 37, and 63 and 64 Vict., c. 22), which in ertain I. ■ classes of employment, as rail- ways, factories, mines, etc., rendei the employer liable for any personal injury incurred by a man bj anj accident arising out of and in
- i uir f his employment.
Hie American legislation on this subject is of ■ arac t of t he States hav- ing pas ed one or more statutes Intended to en- the liability of the employer of labor. The English ict of 1880 has been largely followed. In -oino States this remedial legislation has been " iv. of railroad companies ; 11 ' [ lii 'ii po it ion to ' ade the new rule ot liability, by requiring an employee to sign n tils ,,f 9 uch legislation, has been defeated by further statutes forbidding the ii ■■ < i ui ii cont rai I oi declai ing them to ill and roid. hether such contracts, apart
