kniga 7 - Probability and Statistics 1 - Sheynin, Oscar

In accord with the gravity of their consequences, accidents are separated into severalcategories:1. Mild accidents causing incapacity for work not more than for 13 weeks (in Austria, notmore than for 4 weeks).2. Those causing a longer but still temporary incapacity.3. Accidents resulting in complete or partial permanent disability.4. Fatal accidents.I adduce the relative numbers of accidents of these categories; note that the number ofaccidents coincides with the number of victims. In this table 2 , attention is turned first of allon the gradual increase in the relative numbers of accidents, both in their recorded totals andin those of the two last-mentioned categories. Such an increase is observed not only for allthe insured taken as a single whole, but also for the separate branches of industry, inGermany as well as in Austria. The opponents of the system of compulsory insurance are aptto interpret this fact, not foreseen beforehand, as an argument favoring their viewpoint andattribute the increase to the action of the insurance. Even assuming, however, that confidencein a partial recompense for the harm caused by an accident can sometimes relax a worker’svigilance and prudence (mostly when handling machines and tools dangerous for life andhealth), we conclude, as von Mayr absolutely correctly remarked at the Milan Congress, thatthat premise speaks against insurance as such rather than against the compulsion.Actually, the connection between insurance and the increase in the number of accidentscannot be considered as proven by statistical data. It is mush more probable that the increaseis purely fictitious, that it may be explained by the improvement, over the years, of thesystem of recording accidents, and by the population’s ever better understanding theinstitution of insurance and of the ensuing rights to demand recompense for the consequencesof accidents.Another possible cause of the relative increase of those recompensed in Germany may beseen in a transition from the narrow interpretation of an occupational accident to its widedefinition according to which the presence of a special occupational danger connected withthe victim’s kind of work is not demanded anymore. In general, given the vagueness andrelativity of the concept of occupational accident, not each distinction between statisticalnumbers concerning different countries or periods corresponds to the same distinction in reallife.In this respect, interesting are the facts reported by Greulich at the Milan Congress. As aresult of a law passed in 1877 and imposing on manufacturers the duty to report each more orless serious accident, a continuous increase in their numbers was being noted in the Zürichcanton during 1878 – 1883. Then, a directive demanding a stricter observance of the law wasissued and the number of accidents in 1885 increased at once by 50%. The law of 1887introduced a new, more favorable for the victims, procedure at investigations of civilresponsibility, and proclaimed free legal hearings of cases dealing with recompense for theconsequences of accidents, – and this fact was again reflected in the considerable increase inthe pertinent statistical figures. And so, it is not proven, and neither is it likely that theintroduction of compulsory insurance in Germany and Austria led to an actual increase in thenumber of accidents. And there are still less grounds for recognizing a causal relationshipbetween the two facts.The categories of occupational accidents listed above are vague and relative to the sameextent and perhaps even more so. Thus, rather often sure objective indications of whether avictim is disabled forever or only temporary are lacking. Not less difficult is the exactdistinction between complete and partial disability. Consequently, it might be thought thatthe variation of the numbers in columns 5 and 7 in the first part of Table 1 was occasioned bya gradual change of the views held by the authorities responsible for granting pensions to thevictims.