In one of the cases in which the elevator shafts were reported as not being properly guarded, guards were provided but the rails were not kept closed when elevator car was away.

INDIANA.

SUMMARY OF LEGISLATION.1

The Indiana law upon elevator safeguarding is very complete in It provides as follows:"

its scope.

(A) It shall be the duty of the owner or lessee of any manufacturing or mercantile establishment, laundry, renovating works, bakery, or printing office, where there is an elevator, hoisting shaft, or wellhole, to cause the same to be properly and substantially inclosed or secured, if in the opinion of the chief inspector it is necessary to protect the lives or limbs of those employed in such establishments.

(B) It shall also be the duty of the owner, agent, or lessee of each of such establishments to provide, or cause to be provided, if in the opinion of the chief inspector, the safety of persons in or about the premises should require it, such proper trap or automatic doors so fastened in or at all elevator ways as to form a substantial surface when closed, and so constructed as to open and close by the action of the elevator in its passage, either ascending or descending, but the requirements of this section shall not apply to passenger elevators that are closed on all sides.

(C) The chief inspector shall inspect the cables, gearing, or other apparatus of elevators in the establishments above enumerated and require that the same be kept in safe condition.

(D) With proper safety devices whereby the cabs or cars will be securely held in event of accident to the cable or rope or hoisting machinery, or from any similar cause.

Penalty. To be fined not more than $50 for the first offense; for the second offense, not more than $100, to which may be added imprisonment for not more than 10 days; and for the third offense, not less than $250 and not more than 30 days' imprisonment.

The factory inspector is thus made the judge as to when the protective measures referred to by the law are necessary. Until orders are received from the inspection department failure to provide guards is not negligence.3

The authority of the department to correct unsafe conditions is very broad. It may require (A) that hoisting shafts be inclosed or secured, (B) that automatic trapdoors be provided at all floor openings, (C) that cables, gearings, etc., be in safe condition, and (D) that elevator cars be equipped with safety devices to prevent falling.

1 The law here referred to is as in force at the time of the investigation, February and March, 1909. The text of the laws in force Jan. 1, 1912, is given in the appendixes at the end of this volume.

2 Ann. Stat. of 1894, Rev. of 1901, secs. 7087e and 7087g (22d An. Rept. Com. of Labor, pp. 398, 402).

3 82 N. E. Rep. 114 (22d An. Rept. Com, of Labor, p. 398).

The first three provisions (A, B, and C), it may be observed, are almost identical in their wording with the New York statute (p. 332). The only difference of importance is that the Indiana law directs (provision C) that the inspector "shall" inspect cables, etc., and require such to be in safe condition, whereas the New York statute merely authorizes, and does not positively require, the inspecting department to perform such action. The authority given the inspector to order safety devices on elevator cars to prevent falling (provision D) does not occur in the New York law.

The full responsibility for the enforcement of all the legal provisions regarding elevator protection, as quoted above, rests upon the State factory inspection department.1

CONDITIONS FOUND.

Of the 47 establishments visited, 40 had elevators. The following table shows the completeness of elevator protection in these 40 establishments:

ESTABLISHMENTS HAVING AND NOT HAVING SPECIFIED SAFEGUARDS ON ALL ELEVATORS-INDIANA.

The following provision represents the legislation of Michigan upon the subject of elevator guarding:3

(A) It shall be the duty of the owner, agent or lessee of any manufacturing establishment where hoisting shafts or wellholes are used, to cause the same to be properly inclosed and secured.

(B) It shall also be the duty of the owner, agent, or lessee to provide or cause to be provided at all elevator openings in any manufacturing establishment, workshop, hotel, or store, such proper trap or automatic doors or automatic gates, so constructed as to open or close by the action of elevators either ascending or descending.

1 Ann. Stat. of 1894, Rev. of 1901, sec. 7087v (22d An. Rept. Com. of Labor, p. 402). 2 The law here referred to is as in force at the time of the investigation, March, 1909. The text of the laws in force Jan. 1, 1912, is given in the appendixes at the end of this volume.

3 Acts of 1901, act No. 113, secs. 5 and 18 (22d An. Rept. Com. of Labor, pp. 659,

(C) The factory inspector, assistant factory inspector, or deputy factory inspector shall inspect the cables, gearing, or other apparatus of elevators in manufacturing establishments, workshops, hotels, and stores at least once in each year, and more frequently if necessary, and require that the same be kept in a safe condition.

Penalty.-Fine of not less than $5 nor more than $100, or impris

onment not less than 10 days nor more than 90 days, or both.1 As regards subject matter this law is closely similar to the New York statute (see pp. 332, 333). Both provide for the guarding of elevator shafts, for the provision of automatic gates or doors at floor openings, and for the inspection of cables, gearing, etc. They differ chiefly in the extent to which the factory inspection department is vested with discretionary authority in enforcing the several requirements. The New York law is entirely "discretionary"-that is to say, no duty devolves upon the owner of a factory to provide elevator safeguards until he is specifically ordered to do so by the factory inspector. The Michigan law, on the other hand, is mandatory as regards the first two requirements-the guarding of elevator shafts and the provision of automatic trap doors-and as regards the third requirement-the inspection of cables, gearing, etc., by the factory inspectors-it makes such inspection a duty on the part of the inspectors instead of merely giving the inspectors discretionary authority in the matter, as does the New York law. It is also to be noted that the Michigan law requires that the inspection of the cables, gearing, etc., shall take place at least once each year.

The State factory inspection department of Michigan is specifically charged with the duty of enforcing all of the above quoted provisions.'

CONDITIONS FOUND.

Eighteen of the 19 establishments visited had freight elevators. The following table shows the completeness of elevator protection in these 18 establishments:

ESTABLISHMENTS HAVING AND NOT HAVING SPECIFIED SAFEGUARDS ON ALL ELEVATORS-MICHIGAN.

By Acts of 1909, act 285, sec. 54 (Bulletin of the Bureau of Labor, No. 85, p. 640), the minimum fine was raised to $10.

Acts of 1901, act No. 113, sec. 12 (22d An. Rep. Com. of Labor, p. 660).

WISCONSIN.

SUMMARY OF LEGISLATION.1

The statutes of Wisconsin contain the following provisions relative to the safeguarding of elevators: 2

* * *

(A) to perform labor

* *

[Elevators in any] place where persons are employed which are so located as to be dangerous to employees in the discharge of their duty shall be securely guarded or fenced.

Penalty.-$25 for each offense, and each day's neglect of failure, after conviction, to constitute a separate offense.3

(B) Any such officer [i. e., State inspector] may order*** elevator wells ** * or dangerous machinery of any kind to be inclosed or otherwise guarded so as to protect workmen or others.

Penalty. $50 for each refusal to obey written order.*

(C) [No] person * * * shall remove any guard or other safety device from * * * elevator wells * * *shafting or dangerous * is in motion or use * * machinery, while such * *

*

Penalty.-$5 to $50, or imprisonment not more than 30 days, or both.

(D) It shall be the duty of such officers [i. e., the State inspectors] to examine freight and passenger elevators and to condemn those found to be defective and unsafe by serving written notice * * * by posting such notice on the walls or cab of any elevator found to be in an unsafe condition.

or

[After condemnation operation of elevator without proper repairs renders owner liable, civilly and criminally, tor each physical injury, whether or not such injury results in death.]*

The first of these three provisions-requiring elevators to be "securely guarded or fenced"-is mandatory upon employers. Failure to guard an elevator dangerous to an employee engaged in his ordinary duties is a legal violation and is negligence per se, the jury determining when the location of an elevator is dangerous. It is to be noted, however, that the requirement is not that every place be guarded which might possibly cause injury, but only such places as are dangerous to employees engaged in the discharge of their duties. This latter point may be of considerable importance as

1 The law here referred to is as in force at the time of the investigation, March, 1909. The text of the laws in force January 1, 1912, is given in the appendixes at the end of this volume.

2 The provisions quoted here do not include a law regarding the fireproofing of walls and casings and passenger elevators. Ann. Stat. of 1898, Supp. of 1906, Acts of 1907, sec. 1636-5 (22d An. Rept. Com. of Labor, p. 1411).

3 Ann. Stat. of 1898, Supp. of 1906, Acts of 1907, sec. 1636j (22d An. Rept. Com. of Labor, p. 1410).

4 Idem, sec. 1021h (22d An. Rept. Com. of Labor, p. 1408). 73 N. W. Rep., 563 (22d An. Rept. Com. of Labor, p. 1410). 686 N. W. Rep., 153 (22d An. Rept. Com. of Labor, p. 1410).

many accidents occur where the persons affected are not technically engaged in the discharge of any duty, but without negligence or even undue carelessness on their part.

The second and fourth of the quoted provisions confer a broad authority upon the factory inspectors to order elevators to be protected the second by authorizing such officials to require elevator wells to be inclosed or otherwise guarded, the fourth by directing them to inspect all elevators and to condemn such as are dangerous. The power given the inspectors by the latter provision is extremely broad. Its wording is such that the authority to condemn might include any kind of defect in the elevator car or shafting, but the probable intention was that it should cover only those defects which threatened the safety of passengers and operators.

The enforcement of the several provisions regarding elevator protection, as quoted above, rests with the State factory inspection department.

CONDITIONS FOUND.

Fifteen of the 19 establishments visited had elevators. The following table shows the completeness of elevator protection in these 15 establishments:

The laws of Maryland, at the time of this investigation, made no provision for protection against elevator accidents.1

The chief factory inspector stated that he paid no attention to the matter of elevator safety in factories or elsewhere.

1 The law here referred to is as in force at the time of the investigation, January, 1909. The text of the laws in force Jan. 1, 1912, is given in the appendixes at the end of this volume.