One of the reasons why the Compensation Aet of Columbia did not apply. to Americans in China was that it would burden Americans $f did, Me, Franklin said. American firms would be foreed to maintalty an Insurance overhead, to which their non-American competitors would not be bound, "There were other rea sons, Mr, Franklin said, which made impracticable, such as the filing of papers in the'Distriet of Columbia.
Mr. Franklin drew a parallel with the non-application of the prohibition laws, "For the same reason, prohibition laws were not applicable 10 China—fortunately," Mr. Franklin added.
the plaintiff was to succeed she must show that the defendants. were guilty with negligence in not furnish-tug, her with a safe place to work, Dut if she herself was guilty contributory negligence, her ease fell the ground, Even though the defendants were guilty with refer= ence to the law, if the plaintiff knew of the condition of the floor and Knew that It was slippery, she assumed that risk and would not obtain any recovery.
Regarding the question that the defendants were gullly of negligence in maintaining a slippery floor, there Way no. evidence given by the plaintiff that there were any patches Of wax that had not been rubbed off," The only" thing that pointed towards it was that she slipped and that others had slipped, but while they knew. others. slipped they did not know how they slipped, They did not know whether they were wearing gh heels or whether they ran across the for.
On the other hand there was the testimony of Mr, Hazzard that the loot was usual and had been mains {tained inthe usual way. Counsel said he did not believe that because The plaintitt. slipped—and othe slipped the defendants could be held be negligent,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.