justice that dealt with common claims. He held the position until 1880, when his reputation prompted President ULYSSES S. GRANT to appoint him a U.S. district judge in the Fifth Circuit. Woods’s judicial conservatism began to develop during this period; however, he still took a somewhat tolerant view of federal power, especially with regard to the government’s power to protect CIVIL RIGHTS. In 1881 President Hayes nominated Woods to the U.S. Supreme Court. Once in the Court’s conservative majority, his judicial priorities changed. Following the Civil War, Congress had enacted n ew civil rights l a ws aimed at ending RACIAL DISCRIMINATION; equally important to this end w a s the RATIFICATION of the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT to the U.S. Constitution in 1868. But the Supreme Court soon undermined these efforts. In 1883 it struck down provisions of the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT of 1875; Woods joined in the 8 to 1 majority in the so-called CIVIL RIGHTS CASES, 109 U.S. 3, 3 S. Ct. 18, 27 L. Ed. 835. Woods’s intolerance for federal reform efforts marked his last years on the Court. Like the majority of the justices, he took a narrow view of the Fourteenth Amendment. He wrote the majority opinion in United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629, 1 S. Ct. 601, 16 Otto 629, 27 L. Ed. 290 (1883), which held unconstitutional a federal law prote cting African Americans from the terrorist KU KLUX KLAN organization. Woods stated that such powers properly belonged to states rather than the federal government. He died on May 14, 1887, in Washington D.C. WORDS AND PHRASES ® A multivolume set of law books published by West Group containing thousands of judicial definitions of words and phrases, arranged alphabetically, from 1658 to the present. Words and Phrases is a legal research and reference work that is aimed primarily at lawyers. It was first published in 1940 and has been continuou sly updated since then. It contains words and phrases that have taken on special meaning in the law. The interpretation or meaning attributed to a word or phrase in a statute, court rule, adminis- trative regulation, business document, or agree- ment often determines rights, duties, obligations, and liabilities of the parties. Many court decisions are based on the meaning attributed by an appellate court to a single word or phrase. Words and Phrases allows a person to hone in on pertinent cases by selecting key words or phrases contained in a document. William Burnham Woods 1824–1887 ❖ ◆ 1824 Born, Newark, Ohio ◆ 1845 Graduated from Yale University ◆ 1856 Elected mayor of Newark, Ohio 1861–65 U.S. Civil War ▼▼ ▼▼ 18001800 18501850 18751875 19001900 18251825 1868 14th Amendment ratified, gave citizenship rights to African Americans 1847 Admitted to Ohio bar 1857–61 Served in the Ohio General Assembly 1883 Wrote majority opinion in United States v. Harris; voted with the majority in the Civil Rights Cases 1870 15th Amendment ratified, gave voting rights to African Americans 1812–14 War of 1812 1887 Died, Washington, D.C. 1881–87 Served as associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court ◆ ❖ 1869–80 Served on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ◆ 1868–69 Served as chancellor of the Middle District of Alabama ◆ William B. Woods. PAINTING BY VIC BOSWELL/ERIK GUIDE HAUPT. COLLECTION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. 448 WORDS AND PHRASES ® GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION Prior to the introduction of online and CD-ROM legal research tools, a work such as Words and Phrases played a key role in legal research by leading the researcher to a primary authority, such as a case, statute, or constitu- tional provision. In 1996 WESTLAW®introduced Words and Phrases as part of its online service. Whenever possible, Words and Phrases entries are written in the exact language the court employed. WORDS OF ART The vocabulary or terminology of a particular art, science, or profession, particularly those expres- sions that are peculiar to it. Though a society may share a common language, there are many specialized uses of words based on human activities. An examina- tion of any profession, for example, will yield many expressions that are idiomatic or peculiar to it. For the person working within the profession, these become words of art, which usually convey a meaning much different from the normal use of these words, or which may be completely baffling to an outsider. Because the law is based on the expression of language, it contains thousands of words of art. Many persons working outside the legal profes- sion would recognize that “taking the Fifth” means that a person is asserting his or her protection against SELF-INCRIMINATION under the FIFTH AMENDMENT to the U.S. Constitution. However, very few persons would understand that an appellant is the party bringing an appeal, while a respondent is the party against whom the appeal is taken. Appellant and respondent are words of art. CROSS REFERENCE Term of Art. WORDS OF LIMITATION The words in a deed or will that indicate what type of estate or rights the person being given land receives. Words of limitation are used to indicate the duration or terms of the conveyance of real property. There are many types of limitations that can be expressed in a deed or a will. For example, a grantor might make a deed that conveys a parcel of land “to A until B marries.” A’s estate is restricted by these words of limitation, since A is given the land for only a specified length of time (the time before B marries). A grantor may also place restrictions on who may receive property by employing words of limitation. For example, a grantor might convey property “to A and the heirs of her body.” The words heirs of her body limit the persons who can inherit the property and are, therefore, recognized as words of limitation. WORDS OF PURCHASE Language used in connection with a transfer of real property that identifies the grantees or designees who take the interest being conveyed by deed or will. The term words of purchase is a technical conveyancing expression, a TERM OF ART in real PROPERTY LAW that has nothing to do with the ordinary meanings of the word purchase. The word purchase in the expression means that real property is being transferred by deed or will, not inherited through the laws of DESCENT AND DISTRIBUTION . Whether the property is bought or given away, if the transfer is by deed or will, it is a purchase in this usage. The act or process of acquiring real property by deed or will is called taking by purchase, even though it was a gift . The person who acquires real property by deed or will is called a purchaser, even though this person may have paid nothing. Words of purchase are the words in a deed or will that tell who takes an interest in real property. The expression is contrasted with words of limitation, which are words in a deed or will that tell how long that interest will last. For example, in a deed to Whiteacre “To A for life,” To A are words of purchase, for life are words of limitation. WORK PRODUCT RULE A legal doctrine that provides that certain materials prepared by an attorney who is acting on behalf of his or her client during preparation for litigation are privileged from discovery by the attorney for the opposition party. Under rules of civil and CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, as well as some statutes, parties to a civil lawsuit or a criminal prosecution must provide each other with information about the pending LITIGATION. If a party will not disclose informa- tion during the discovery process, a court may GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION WORK PRODUCT RULE 449 issue an order compelling the production of evidence. The work product rule is an exception to the concept of sharing information. This rule is based on the attorney-client relationship, which includes maintaining the confidentiality of information given by the client. However, it is broader in scope than the ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE , which only covers communication directly between the attorney and the client. The general rule is that legal research, records, correspondence, reports, or memoranda are attorney work product to the extent that they contain the opinions, theories, strategies, men- tal impressions, or conclusions of the client, the attorney, or persons participating in the case with the attorney, such as a jury co nsultant. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 67 S. Ct. 385, 91 L. Ed. 451 (1947), upheld the legitimacy of the work product rule contained in the Federal Rules of CIVIL PROCEDURE. Since the Hickman decision, there have been numerous cases in federal and state courts involving disputes over what constitutes non-discoverable work product. For example, in Bondy v. Brophy, 124 F.R.D. 517 (D. Mass. 1989), the federal district court ruled that the work product rule applied to information obtained by an investigator hired by the attorney for the administrator of a probate estate who had questions about a decedent’s property transfers. The DEFENDANT (who was being sued by the PLAINTIFF)soughttoobtain information from the investigator, including identities of persons investigated, identities of persons contacted, and copies of any and all written reports. She argued that the work product rule only applied to information gathered for a trial or l i tigation a nd th at, at the time of th e investigation, no litigation was contemplated. The court rejected her argument, finding that the information collected was not in the ordinary course of business, nor was it typical for the administrator of an estate to hire an investigator to look into property transfers of a decedent. The only reasonable inference is that the investigator was hired because the plaintiff had questions about these transfers and was considering appropriate legal action if the inquiry turned up evidence of questionable conduct. Under these circumstances, the investigator’s report and the names of persons he contacted enjoyed qualified protection under the work product rule. CROSS REFERENCE Attorney-Client Privilege. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION Workers’ compensation is a system whereby an employer must pay, or provide insurance to pay, the lost wages and medical expenses of an employee who is injured on the job. Workers’ compensation law is governed by statutes in every state. Federal employees are governed by the Federal Employees Compensa- tion Act (Pub.L. 103-3. 1993). Specific laws vary with each jurisdiction, but key features are consistent. Any employee is automatically enti- tled to receive certain benefits when that person suffers an OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE or accidental PERSONAL INJURY arising out of and in the COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT . Such benefits may include cash or wage-loss benefits, medical and career reha- bilitation benefits, and in the case of accidental death of an employee, benefits to dependents. The NEGLIGENCE and fault of either the employer or the employee usually are immaterial. Inde- pendent contractors are not entitled to workers’ compensation benefits, and in some states domestic workers and agricultural workers are excluded or only partially covered. It is the goal of workers’ compensation to return the injured employee quickly and eco- nomically to the status of productive worker without unduly harming the employer’s business. A worker whose injury is covered by the workers’ compensation statute loses the common-law right to sue the employer for that injury, but injured workers may still sue third parties whose negligence contributed to the work injury. For example, a truck driver injured in a rear-end collision by an unemployed THIRD PARTY would be entitled to collect workers’ compensation and also to sue the third party for negligence. In such cases a PLAINTIFF who recovers money from a third-party lawsuit must first repay the employer or insurer that paid workers’ co mpensation benefits. The plaintiff may keep any remaining money. Many jurisdictions permit the employer or its insurer to sue negligent third parties on the employee’s behalf to recover funds paid as workers’ compensation benefits. In most states parties to workers’ compensa- tion disputes resolve them in an administrative, rather than judicial, tribunal. Courts usually relax the standard rules of procedure, evidence, and conflict of laws to allow for expediency and GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 450 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION simplicity in keeping with the goal of getting an injured worker the benefits necessary to return to work. Workers’ compensation statutes require most employers to purchase private or state-funded insurance, or to self-insure, to make certain that injured workers receive proper benefits. The cost of insurance is reflected in the cost of goods or services produced by the employer; thus the cost of workers’ compensation liability is passed ultimately to consumers. Workers’ compensation law is unusual in that negligent acts of either the employer or the injured employee generally are irrelevant to the determination of compensability. Victims of injuries not related to work in most cases must prove the negligence of another party before recovering money in a lawsuit. Conversely, a DEFENDANT in a personal injury lawsuit may avoid or mitigate liability to a plaintiff whose own negligence caused or contributed to the personal injury. Yet workers’ compensation is a no-fault law, and an employee’s negligence or an employ- er’s lack of negligence is usually not a factor. The underlying social philosophy of this no- fault system is evident when one considers what would happen without workers’ compensation. For example, assume a responsible employer encourages a safe workplace and implements a rule requiring workers to obtain the assistance of a coworker before climbing a tall ladder to a storage area. One employee, hurrying to get her work done for the day, ignores this rule and climbs the ladder without assistance. When she reaches the top of the ladder, it shifts and she falls, injuring her spine and paralyzing her legs. Society could choose to treat this injured worker in one of three basic ways. It could refuse to render any aid, instead forcing the injured worker to seek help from friends or family. If the worker was without ties to persons both willing and able to assist, this plan would leave her destitute. A second option would be to give her government aid, or WELFARE, such as MEDICAID or food stamps. This alternative would be less speculative but still not ideal because it would force local taxpayers to pay for the worker’s benefits regardless of whether they had any connection to the injury. The third solution is the workers’ compen- sation system. This system preserves the injured worker’s dignity and well-being by providing an income and medical care and keeping her off welfare. The system passes the cost of compen- sating injured workers to consumers of pro- ducts that, through their manufacture, cause the workers to get injured. Thus the social philoso- phy underlying workers’ compensation is the efficient and dignified provision of financial and medical benefits to those injured on the job and the allocation of the expense to an appropriate source: the consumer. Workers’ compensation is also distinguish- able from other personal injury laws where negligence is a factor because although the employer is liable for paying injured workers’ benefits, the purpose of workers’ compensation is not to punish or hurt the employer. For this reason, an integral component of workers’ compensation is the requirement that employers purchase workers’ compensation insurance, or provide a self-insured fund, to pay the benefits. This way, the employer can pass along the cost of insurance to the purchasers of the employer’s product. History Workers’ compensation laws in the United States developed during the early 1900s as a result of the industrial age and growing numbers of industrial injuries. Before these laws were devel- oped, workers injured on the job often found themselves without remedy against their employer or their fellow workers. The law of VICARIOUS LIABILITY developed in England in approximately 1700 to make the master, or employer, liable for the acts of the servant, or employee. In 1837, however, the English case Priestly v. Fowler, 3 M. & W. 1, 150 Reprint 1030, created the fellow servant exception to the general rule of a master’s vicarious liability; no longer would the master be held liable for an employee’s negligence in causing injury to a coworker. After Priestly, courts in the 1800s continued to develop employer defenses to liability for injured workers. One such defense, assumption of the risk, allowed employers to escape liability with the questionable logic that employees could avoid or decline dangerous work duties. Another defense, contributory negligence, allowed employers to escape liability, notwith- standing the employer’s negligence, where the employee was also negligent. Therefore, during a century of burgeoning industry and its inherent risk of work-related accidents, workers GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION WORKERS’ COMPENSATION 451 faced nonexistent or inadequ ate remedies for their injuries. At the end of the nineteenth century, state lawmakers recognized the problem and began studying the compensation system developed in Germany in 1884. Rooted largely in its socialistic tradition, Germany’s compensation system man- dated that employers and employees share in the cost of paying benefits to workers disabled by sickness, accident, or old age. Britain followed suit in 1897 with the British Compensation Act, which later became the model for many state workers’ compensation laws in the United States. In 1910 representatives of various state commissions met at a conference in Chicago and drafted the Uniform Workmen’s Compen- sation Law. Although not overwhelmingly adopted, this uniform law became the blueprint for state workers’ compensation statutes. All but eight states had adopted a workers’ compensa- tion law by 1920, and, in 1963, Hawaii became the last state to do so. Accident and Injury Workers’ compensation benefits are most com- monly provided to workers who are injured by a specific accident on the job, such as the worker who trips and falls down the employer’s staircase or the worker who gets a hand caught in factory machinery. But a compensable accidental injury might also include an occupational disease, such as lung disease that resulted from an employee’s exposure to asbestos in the workplace. Cumula- tive trauma associated with work duties, such as carpal tunnel syndrome caused by repetitive keyboard work, also can be compensable. Jurisdictions differ as to whether work-related mental illness is compensable. In the majority of states, mental illness caused by work, such as stress, anxiety, or depression, is not compensable. A common exception to this rule exists when a specific accident or injury at work leads to mental illness. For example, an employee who suffers from panic attacks upon hearing the phone ring at work generally will not be entitled to workers’ compensation benefits. But an employee who witnesses a vicious ASSAULT AND BATTERY at work, and who then develops anxiety and panic attacks as a result, would be entitled to compensation in most jurisdictions. Requirements for Benefits An injured worker is entitled to workers’ compensation benefits only if the injury arose out of and in the course of employment. The first part of this requirement, “arising out of employment,” ensures that there is a causal connection between the work and the injury. Usually the employee has the burden of proving that the injury was caused by exposure to an increased risk from employment. In determining whether an injury is compen- sable, it is helpful to categorize the risk causing the injury in one of three ways. First, there is the risk that is associated distinctly with the employ- ment. An example would be a house painter injured in a fall from a scaffold; the house painter would not have been on the scaffold but for his employment. This type of injury is always compensable as arising out of employment. The second category of risk is risk that is personal to the claimant. An example is a worker who develops lung cancer due to years of smoking. Assuming this cancer was not caused by carcinogens in the workplace and would have developed notwithstanding employment, the disease would be considered personal and not arising out of employment. Injuries from purely personal risks are never compensable. The third category of risk, neutral risk, is the most problematic in determining the compensa- bility of a work injury. Neutral risks are neither distinct to the employment nor distinctly personal. Examples would include a teacher shot in a drive-by shooting while standing in his classroom; an auto mechanic bitten by a stray dog while dumping oil into an outdoor recepta- cle; and an executive struck by lightning when walking to his car after a meeting. Whether an injury resulting from a neutral risk is compensable is difficult to predict and often depends on the jurisdiction of the tribunal, the nature of the injury, and the precise facts surrounding the accident. For example, injuries caused by lightning are usually compensable if the claimant can show that the work conditions increased the risk of being struck. An employee struck while working atop a metal electric pole likely would receive workers’ compensation benefits for a lightning injury or death, whereas an employee struck while walking to her car after her work shift would have a more difficult time collecting benefits. In Reich v. A. Reich & Sons Gardens, Inc., 485 S.W. 2d 133 (Mo. Ct. App. 1972), the employee was killed by lightning while standing next to several vehicles in a wheat field. The court deemed the death compensable, citing GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 452 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION testimony that the employee’s risk of being hit by lightning was greater than that of other people in the vicinity, who were sheltered in cars and buildings and were not standing in an open field. Using the same logic, injuries from sunstroke, freezing, and other effects of heat and cold exposure arise out of the course of employment if the employee can show that such exposure was greater than that to which the general public was exposed. Workers who contract contagious diseases at work will receive benefits upon a showing that the workplace offered an increased risk of exposure. Another type of neutral-risk injury is ASSAULT. Most courts will deem an assault as arising out of the course of employment if the nature or setting of the work increased the risk of assault or if a quarrel that led to the assault originated at work. In Bryan v. Best Western/Coachman’sInn, 885 S. W.2d 28 (Ark. 1994), the claimant worked as a security guard at a motel. The claimant and the motel night clerk were involved in a personal dispute, which led to a fight between the claimant and the night clerk’s boyfriend, injuring the claimant. The court held that even though the dispute was personal and not related to work, the claimant, because of his job, faced an increased risk of assault. His injuries therefore were compensable. Even idiopathic injuries, or injuries resulting from risks personal to the employee as opposed to risks associated with the job, may be compensable if the job contributes to the risk or aggravates the injury. An employee who misses breakfast and suffers a fainting spell ordinarily will not be entitled to workers’ compensation, because the fainting spell does not arise out of employment. But if the same worker faints and in so doing hits her head on her desk and fractures her skull, her injury will be compensable. In Silverman v. Roth, 9 A.D. 2d 591, 189 N.Y.S.2d 311 (1959), the employee died of heart failure after suffering a heart attack and falling from a ladder. The precise sequence of events was impossible to determine. Nevertheless, the court awarded benefits, citing evidence that even if the heart attack occurred before the fall from the ladder, the heart condition would have been aggravated by the shock of the fall, and thus the fall from the ladder was a contributing factor in the employee’sdeath. In addition to the requirement that an injury arise out of employment, the employee seeking workers’ compens ation also must show that the injury arose “in the course of employ- ment.” To arise in the course of employment, the injury must take place within the employ- ment period, in a location where it is reasonable for the employee to be, and while the employee is fulfilling work duties. This does not mean that the emplo yee must actually be doing his job, or doing it within the pre cise work hours, when the injury occurs for it to be compensable. Distinguishing between injuries that do or do not arise out of the course of employment is often a difficult and confusing task. One common issue arises when an employee is injured going to or from work. Clearly, employment necessitates that an employee travel to work and home again. Yet it is not the purpose of workers’ compensation to protect the employee from the risk of travel. Courts have, through the years, reached a compromise: An employee with fixed hours and work locale going to or coming from work generally is covered by workers’ compensation if the injury occurs on the employer’spremises. This rule can lead to rather harsh results, as in Heim v. Longview Fibre Co., 41 Wash. App. 745, 707 P.2d 689 (1985). There, the claimant was driving his motorcycle through the usual exit from his employer’s premises when a coworker turning into the premises hit the claimant, killing him. The precise location of the crash was fewer than five feet from the employer’s property, on a public access road to the plant used by company personnel. Nevertheless, the court held that the injury did not arise in the course of employment and denied death benefits. Employees injured off work premises may still recover damages in tort against any persons whose negligence caused them harm. Some courts, recognizing the harshness of the premises rule, have attempted to extend the premises rule to include injuries that occur within a reasonable distance of the employer’s premises. And most courts recognize the compensability of an injury that occurs off the employer’spremises when an employee is going to or coming from work, where the trip itself is a substantial part of the employee’s service to the employer. In Urban v. Industrial Commission, 34 Ill. 2d 159, 214 N.E.2d 737 (Ill. App. Ct. 1966), the employee, a traveling salesperson, was killed in a car accident while driving in the direction of his home, although the evidence was not clear that he was GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION WORKERS’ COMPENSATION 453 actually returning home. The court ruled the death to be compensable. Benefits Workers’ compensation provides two general categories of benefits to injured workers: INDEM- NITY benefits and medical benefits. Indemnity benefits compensate for the worker’slossof income or earning capacity resulting from the work-related injury. Depending on the employ- ee’s medical status and ability to work following the injury, she may be entitled to different types of indemnity benefits. A worker whose injury is only temporary and does not preclude her ability to work her normal job duties and hours typically will not receive indemnity benefits because her injury has no effect on her ability to earn a living. A worker whose injury temporarily causes him to miss time from work will be entitled to payment of all or a portion of his lost wages, k nown a s temporary partial disability benefits. A worker whose injury temporarily renders him unable to work at all may receive temporary total disability, which is usually a portion of the worker’s average wage. A worker who is able to work at least part time but who has a work-related permanent disability may be entitled to permanent partial disability bene- fits. The formula for permanent partial disability benefits varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction but usually considers the employee’s average weekly wage combined with the degree of permanent disability. Finally, a worker who is permanently disabled from working at all may be entitled to permanent total disability benefits. The payment of medical benefits is usually not controversial. However, disputes do arise when a worker req uests payments for services provided by a family member. For example, in Carbajal v. Industrial Com’n of Arizona,__ P.3d __ 2009 WL 1650428 (2009), the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that employer must pay for the home healthcare services provided by the spouse of an injured worker, even though the spouse was not a licensed home healthcare provider. A frequently disputed issue between an employer and an injured employee is the degree that the employee’s injury restricts her from returning to suitable employment, mitigating the need for indemnity benefits. Some state statutes permit or require the employer to provide an injured employee with vocational rehabilitation, job search assistance, or job retraining if the injury would otherwise prevent the employee from returning to gainful work. In the case of a compensable work-related death, the decedent’s spouse, dependent chil- dren, or both spouse and children may be entitled to dependency benefits. Most jurisdic- tions pay death benefits to a spouse until the spouse dies or remarries and to children until they reach age 18. Other jurisdictions place limits on benefit amount or duration. Employees injured on the job may also receive reasonable and necessary medical ben- efits that are related to the work injury. Such benefits are compensable if they serve to cure the injury or, if the injury is incurable, relieve its effects. These benefits may include medical treatments such as sutures, casts, or surgery; psychiatric or psychological treatments; hospi- tal, nursing, and physical therapy treatments; chiropractic or podiatric treatments; prescrip- tion medications; supplies such as wheelchairs or wrist braces; orthopedic mattresses; or attendant care services. Most workers’ compen- sation statutes also provide for the reimburse- ment of the employee’s travel expenses incurred in obtaining medical services. The System in the Early 2000s Workers’ compensation has been criticized as an expensive component of doing business and a system made more expensive by undetected FRAUD. What was intended to provide the employer and the injured worker with an amicable and humane resolution of a work injury often results in contentious disputes and costly LITIGATION. Some employees feign injury to receive wage-loss benefits, and some employers balk at providing benefits to legitimately injured workers for fear that insurance premiums will rise. But the system has been effective in keeping injured employees employed and promoting the impor- tance of a safe workplace. FURTHER READINGS Bevans, Neil. 2008 Workers’ Compensation Law. Florence, Ky.: Delmar Cengage Learning. Hood, Jack, Benjamin Hardy, and Harold Lewis. 2004. Workers’ Compensation and Employee Protection Laws in a Nutshell. 4th ed. St. Paul. Minn.: Thomson West. Moore, Sandy. 2008. Understanding Workers’ Compensation Insurance. Florence, Ky.: Delmar Cengage Learning. CROSS REFERENCES Employment Law; Labor Law; Master and Servant. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 454 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION WORLD BANK The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, commonly referred to as the WORLD BANK, is an international financial insti- tution whose purposes include assisting the development of its member nations’ territo ries, promoting and supplementing private foreign investment, and promoting long-range balanced growth in intern ational trade. The World Bank was established in July 1944 at the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference in Bretton Woods, N ew Hampshire. It opened for business in June 1946 and helped in the reconstruction of nations devastated by WORLD WAR II. Since the 1960s the World Bank has shifted its focus from the advanced industrialized nations to developing third-world countries. The World Bank consists of a number of separate institutions. The three major institutions are the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), the International Development Association (IDA), and the Inter- national Finance Corporation (IFC). The IBRD, the bank’s most important component, lends funds directly, guarantees loans made by others, or participates in these loans. The IDA, estab- lished in 1960, lends to low-income countries on more favorable terms, charging a small service fee but no interest. It gets its funds from more affluent member countries. The IFC, established in 1956, provides loans to private business in developing countries. Twenty-nine nations joined the World Bank in 1945. As of 2009 the bank had 185 member s. The bank is governed by an executive board and a managing director. Voting in the bank is weighted according to the initial contributions to the bank’s capital, which historically has given the U.S. government a dominant voice in the bank’s affair s. In 1996 almost one-third of the bank’sloans went to the world’s poorest countries. However, the bank has moved away from financing large- scale infrastructure projects, such as roads, rail- ways, and power facilities. Since the 1970s, the bank has provided an increasing number of loans to developing countries for agricultural, educa- tional, and population programs. The goals of these loan programs have been to raise the standard of living and to increase self-sufficiency. The World Bank offers advisory services to countries seeking to reform their banking and finance systems. It also launched InfoDev, an initiative to secure resources from corporations, foundations, and governments to promote reform and investment in the developing world through improved access to information tech- nology. In the late 1990s several coalitions of organizations and individuals formed Jubilee 2000 to campaign for debt-forgiveness for poor countries that found themselves unable to pay back the bank’s loans. The World Bank and the INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND responded by establishing the Heavily Indebted Poor Coun- tries Initiative (HIPC) that sought to provide relief for the world’s most heavily indebted countries. In April 2000 World Bank President James D. Wolfensohn stated that he welcomed Jubilee 2000 and continuing public involvement for their contributions toward getting creditor countries to support HIPC. The IDA provides core funding upon which many of the poorest developing countries rely. In 2007, 45 countries pledg ed a total of $25.1 billion in U.S. dollars for aid that went into the IDA fund. The IDA in turn distributed gifts to 80 poor er countries. The United States pledged $3.7 billion in 2007, about $500 million less than Great Britain. Robert B. Zoellick became the World Bank’s eleventh president on July 1, 2007. Zoellick previously served as Deputy Secretary of the U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT. He was also an executive with the Goldman Sachs Group. FURTHER READINGS Howarth, David, and Peter Loedel. 2003. The European Central Bank: The New European Leviathan? New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Smith, Roy C., and Ingo Walter, eds. 2003. Global Banking. 2d ed. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. World Bank Website. Available online at http://www. worldbank.org/ (accessed June 7, 2009). CROSS REFERENCE International Monetary Fund . WORLD COURT See INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE. WORLD WAR I World War I was an international conflict primarily involving European nations that was fought between 1914 and 1918. The United States did not enter the conflict until April 1917, GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION WORLD WAR I 455 but its entry was the decisive event of the war, enabling the Allies (Great Britain, France , Italy, and Russia) to defeat the Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Turkey, and Bul- garia). The leadership of President WOODROW WILSON led to both the conclusion of hostilities and the creation of the LEAGUE OF NATIONS,an international organization dedicated to resolv- ing disputes without war. Several factors contributed to the war. The underlying causes dated back to the unification of Germany in 1871. Resentment between nations grew during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, sparked in part by Germany’s desire to become an equal with the likes of Great Britain and France. European nations had negotiated military alliances with each other that called for mutual protection. The most sign ificant event to lead to the actual war was the ASSASSINATION of Franz Ferdinand, heir to the throne of the Austro- Hungarian Empire. A young Bosnian Serb killed Ferdinand for political reasons. Austria- Hungary retaliated immediately against the Kingdom of Serbia by declaring war on July 28, 1914, setting off a chain reaction where nations declared war on one another based on alliance commitments. Two major alliances fought the war. The Entente Powers consisted of France, Great Britain, and Russia. Italy (1915) and the United States (1917) later joined this alliance. The Central Powers consisted of Germany, Austria- Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire. Bulgaria joined this alliance in 1915. The war was fought primarily on three fronts and on the Atlantic Ocean. The western front was in France, where Germany was opposed by France, Great Britain, and eventually the United States. The easter n front was in Russia, where Germany and Austria-Hungary opposed Russia. The southern front was in Serbia and involved Austria- Hungary and Serbia. In August 1914 Germany invaded Belgium and then moved into France. German forces were unable to achieve a decisive victory, however, and the war soon became a conflict of fixed battle lines. French, British, and German soldiers lived and fought in trenches, breastworks, and fortifications that stretched 475 miles (600 kilometers). Each side periodi- cally made assaults on the enemy by entering the “no man’s land” betw een two sets of trenches. The use of machine guns, tanks, gas warfare, and artillery in these confined battle- fields generated unprecedented human carnage on the western front. Though Germany had more success on the eastern front, neither side had sufficient eco- nomic and military strength to achie ve victory. In 1916 and early 1917, Wilson sought to bring about negotiations between the Allies and Central Powers that would lead, in his words, to “peace without victory.” Wilson’s efforts at first appeared promising, but German military successes convinced the Central Powers that they could win the war. Germany’s use of submarine warfare proved to be the key element in provoking the United States’ entry into the war. In 1915 a German submarine torpedoed w ithout warning the British passenger steamship Lusitania off the southern coast of Ireland. Nearly 1,200 people died, including 128 U.S. citizens. Popular feeling in the United States against Germany was intense, leading to calls for declaring war on Germany. Wilson, however, sought a diplo- matic solution. Though Germany rebuked his call for assuming responsibility for the tragedy, it did not sink any more passenger liners without warning. Wilson abandoned his peacemaking efforts when Germany announced that unrestricted submarine warfare would begin on February 1, 1917. This meant that U.S. merchant ships were in peril, despite the fact that the United States was a neutral in the war. Wilson broke diplomatic relations with Germany on February 3 and asked Congress later that month for American soldiers man a trench in France in 1918. The entry of the United States in World War I tipped the scales in favor of the Allies, and they soon won the war against the Central Powers. PUBLIC DOMAIN GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION 456 WORLD WAR I authority to arm merchant ships and take other protective measures. In mid-March German submarines sank three U.S. merchant ships, with heavy loss of life. Wilson called a special session of Congress for April 2 and asked for a declaration of war on Germany. Cong ress obliged, and on April 6, 1917, Wilson signed the declaration. The United State s immediately moved to raise a large military force by instituting a military draft. It took months to raise, train, and dispatch troops to Europe. The first 85,000 members of the American Expeditionary Force (AEF), under the command of General Joh n J. Pershing, arrived in France in June 1917. By the end of the war in November 1918, there were 2 million soldiers in the AEF. Germany realized that U.S. war production and financial strength reduced Germany’s chances of victory. In March 1918 Germany launched its last great offensive on the western front. U.S. troops saw their first extended action in the Battle of the Marne, halting the German advance on June 4. During the second Battle of the Marne, U.S. and French troops again stopped the German advance and successfully counterattacked. The Allies began pushing back the German army all along the western front, signaling the beginning of the end of German resistance. Wilson renewed his peace efforts by proposing a fram ework for neg otiation s. On January 8, 1918, he delivered an address to Congress that named Fourteen Points to be used as the guide for a peace settlement. The fourteenth point called for a general associa- tion of nations that would guarantee political independence and territorial integrity for all countries. In October 1918 Germany asked Wilson to arrange a general ARMISTICE based on the Fourteen Points and the immediate start of peace negotiations. Germany finally capitu- lated and signed an armistice on November 11, 1918. The cost of World War I was enormous. More than 60 million European soldiers were mobilized betw een 1914 and 1918. The war caused more than 40 million casualties, includ- ing an estimated 20 million military and civilian deaths related to non-combat aspects of war such as famine and disease. The 1919 TREATY OF VERSAILLES ended World War I and imp osed disarmament, reparations, and territorial changes on Germany. The treaty also established the LEAGUE OF NATIONS,an international organization dedicated to resolv- ing world conflicts peacefully. Wilson was unable to convince the U.S. Senate to ratify the treaty because it was opposed to U.S. membership in the League of Nations. World War I saw the 1917 Bolshevik revolution in Russia. The specter of a worldwide Communist movement generated fears in the United States that socialists, anarchists, and Communists were undermining democratic institutions. During the war, socialist opponents of the war were convicted of SEDITION and imprisoned. In 1920 the federal government rounded up 6,000 ALIENS it considered to be politically subversive. These “Palmer Raids,” named after Attorney General A. MITCHELL PALMER , violated basic civil liberties. Agents entered and searched homes without warrants, held persons without specific charges for long periods of time, and denied them legal counsel. Hundreds of aliens were deported. FURTHER READINGS Hall, Kermit L., and Peter Karsten. 2009. The Magic Mirror: Law in American History. New York: Oxford University Press. Macmillan, Margaret Olwen. 2002. Paris 1919: Six Months that Changed the World. New York: Random House. May, Christopher N. 1989. In the Name of War: Judicial Review and the War Powers Since 1918. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press Murphy, Paul L. 1979. World War I and the Origin of Civil Liberties in the United States. New York: Norton. CROSS REFERENCES Abrams v. United States; Armistice; Communism; “Four- teen Points” (Ap pendix, Primary Document); Socialism. WORLD WAR II World War II began in 1939 when Germany invaded Poland as part of Germany’s effort to expand its empire in Eastern and Western Europe. The war escalated quickly as a conflict between Germany and the combined forces of France and Great Britain and eventually in- cluded most of the nations of the world before it ended in August 1945. It caused the greatest loss of life and material destruction of any war in history, killing 25 million military personnel and 30 million civilians. By the end of the war, the United States had become the most powerful nation in the world, the possessor and user of atomic weapons. The war also GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION WORLD WAR II 457 . rules of procedure, evidence, and conflict of laws to allow for expediency and GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 450 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION simplicity in keeping with the goal of getting. court may GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION WORK PRODUCT RULE 449 issue an order compelling the production of evidence. The work product rule is an exception to the concept of sharing. negligent. Therefore, during a century of burgeoning industry and its inherent risk of work-related accidents, workers GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION WORKERS’ COMPENSATION 451 faced