to
be provided be means of some mutual organization of the insured, or of
the employers, or by the state.

Insurance may be _contributory_ or _noncontributory_. It is on the
contributory plan when the insured workers contribute something
toward the premiums that provide the funds for eventual payment. It is
noncontributory when the funds are provided either by the employers or
by the state without any payments from the insured.

Insurance may be (a) in _private_ companies, carrying on the business
for profit; or (b) in _mutual_ companies of workingmen, or of
employers insuring themselves against the cost of compensation in case
of accident to their employees; or (c) in a _state_ bureau, or fund,
organized and conducted by government.

Sec. 5. #Historical roots of accident insurance#. The different kinds
of social insurance had different origins, some knowledge of which is
necessary to an understanding of the present situation. These origins
still affect the nature of social insurance to-day, and have prevented
the development of a truly unified and logical system in accord with
present conceptions of needs and of justice.

Accident insurance had its beginnings in the liability of employers
for accidents that happened as a result of the employer's negligence,
a principle found to some degree in all countries. Thus the earlier
payments to workers in cases of accidents were not insurance indemnity
but merely damages collected in court for the fault of the employer.
In Great Britain and the United States, indeed, by judicial
interpretation the law grew more strict as against the claims of the
workers, until about 1880 in Great Britain and 1910 in the United
States. To collect damages it was not enough for the workman to prove
the employer's negligence, for collection was made more difficult by
(1) the doctrine of contributory negligence, (2) the doctrine of the
assumption of risk, and (3) the fellow-servant doctrine.

By the doctrine of contributory negligence, the workman's claim could
be defeated by showing that he had by his carelessness contributed
to the accident even when the employer had been negligent. By the
doctrine of assumption of risk the workman was presumed, in entering
upon employment, to have taken upon himself the risks usually incident
to the employment, including the chance of imperfections in the
machinery, of which he might by some care have known. By the
fellow-servant doctrine the employer was