The plaintiff? contends the main tenance of such a slippery floor over which employees necessarily had to walk constitutes negligence on the part of the defendant and that the The District of Columbia Workmen's Compensation Act. Is Sections 11 and 12, Chapter 2, Title 19 of the D.C. Code. By these two sections Congress has adopted by reference the Federal Longshoremen's & Har~ defendant company, not havin} Lorworkers, Compensation Act (US. complied with the Workmen's Com-CA. Title 83, Section 910-50) as the pensation Act of the District of compensation act for the District, The Columbia, is barred in this action Longshoremen's Compensation Act is from maintaining the defences of very drastic one. Due to its com-contributory negligence and assumppulsory provisions, insurance requiretion of risk. The defendant, on the ments, high minimum compensation ther hand, contends that the main~ scale, administrative machinery, ete, tenance of the floor not eral compliance would be impos negligence and that in any event sible in this Surisdiction. "However, plaintiffs fall was caused by her the Court believes the spirit' and Own negligence, and that principle of this law of the United employee she assufned the ordinary States must not be ignored.
sks of employment. The defend~ There is nothing sacrosanet_aboit ant, of course, contends the District the principle of assumption of risk of Columbia Workmen's Compensa-and indeed, it is not a favoured doetion Act is not applicable to this trine but at best is artineial and harsh Jurisdiction because of inherent suitability, and that it has the right and should not be extended beyond reasonable limits. 30° C.J. 080, fo defend on the grounds of con-Assumption of risk was not, as most teibutory. negligence and assumption lawyers are prone to assume, a prin-of risk. ciple of the Common Law. On the Whether the maintenance of contrary, highly polished, slippery floor con-ne stitutes negligence, is frequently a lose question. 'The maintenance of slippery floors in. business places under" varying—circumstances a into prominence. em been' held negligence toward vitees.and employees in the follow tent the "fos Ing ones: Kroger Grocery & Baking 'Company v. Monroe, 237 Ky. 60, 34 {oer SW. (2a) 020. (1031); John 'Gerber Company v, Smith, (Tenn, 1924) 263 S.W, 074; William' Laurie Company MeCullough, 174 Ind. 477, 90 N.E, 1014 "G910); Ward v. Avery (Conn.
Sapitalist when 1931) 155 A; 202; H. F. Holt Company a that "he. had. been Routt "(rex C. App, 1032), 48 S.W, (2d) 388; S.H. Kress & Compony v. Dyer (Tex. C. App. 1952)
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.