Birmingham News Co. v. Andrews

• Decision Date: 14 October 1920
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 984
• Parties: BIRMINGHAM NEWS CO. v. ANDREWS.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

87 So. 168

204 Ala. 649

BIRMINGHAM NEWS CO. v. ANDREWS.

6 Div. 984

Supreme Court of Alabama

October 14, 1920

Rehearing Denied Nov. 18, 1920

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; D.A. Green, Judge.

Action by Herman Andrews by his next friend against the Birmingham News Company for damages for personal injuries. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Percy Benners & Burr, of Birmingham, for appellant.

Beddow & Oberdorfer, of Birmingham, for appellee.

SOMERVILLE J.

The complaint charges a violation by the defendant company of a provision of section 2, as italicized below, of the Child Labor Act (Gen. Acts 1915, p. 193), which is as follows:

"No child under sixteen years of age shall be employed permitted or suffered to work in any gainful occupation except agriculture, or domestic service for more than six days in any one week, or more than sixty hours in any one week, or more than eleven hours in any one day, or before the hour of six o'clock in the morning, or after the hour of six o'clock in the evening."

These several inhibitions are obviously intended to protect the physical health of children against the evils of excessive and unseasonable hours of work at an age when they are unfit to bear such burdens, and the prevention of physical injuries in occupations and at places not inherently dangerous to children within the prohibited age was not within the apparent purpose of the enactment.

Other provisions of the act inhibit absolutely the employment of children under 16 years of age in occupations and at places which are regarded as inherently dangerous or hurtful to them. Their presence at such places being forbidden and unlawful, an employer is held liable for any injury suffered by a child in the course of its employment, whether such injury is the result of performing the service, or of contact with some agency associated with the employer's business or inherent in its environment. De Soto Coal M. & D. Co. v. Hill, 179 Ala. 186, 60 So. 583; Garrett v. L. & N.R.R. Co., 196 Ala. 52, 71 So. 685; Cole v. Sloss-S.S. & I. Co., 186 Ala. 192, 65 So. 177, Ann.Cas.1916E, 99; Brilliant Coal Co. v. Sparks, 16 Ala.App. 665, 81 So. 185. Injuries from such sources it is the purpose of the statute to prevent, and they are regarded as the proximate result of the wrongful employment whether suffered at work or in irrelevant and forbidden play. Many authorities are cited in brief of counsel which support and establish this view. As said in Strafford v. Rep. Iron Co., 238 Ill. 371, 87 N.E. 358, 20 L.R.A.(N.S.) 876, 128 Am.St.Rep. 129:

"There may be, and doubtless are, positions in the industries in which children under fourteen years of age are forbidden by the statute to be employed, where there would be little or no hazard to life or limb if the child confined himself exclusively to the duties of such position; but the childish inclination to experiment and do something he has seen others do is so well known as to make it dangerous to permit his employment in establishments, especially where machinery is used, and the Legislature has therefore seen fit to prohibit his employment in any capacity in such establishments; and we are of opinion that to hold that a child, who is employed in violation of the statute and directed to perform a certain line of work, but who temporarily abandons it and attempts to do something else in the master's business, whereby he is injured, is precluded from recovering if his negligence contributed to his injury, would seriously affect the purposes sought to be accomplished by the statute. Nor in such case can it reasonably be said that there is no causal connection between the employment and the injury."

In Iron & Wire Co. v. Green, 108 Tenn. 161, 65 S.W. 399, cited and reviewed with approval in the Illinois case, it was held that, even though the plaintiff child had left his duties, and while playing in the yard was injured by a pile of iron fencing falling on him--

"the connection between the employment and the injury is that of cause and effect, and brings the complainant within the operation of the statute."

See also, the following cases: Standard Red Cedar Chest Co. v. Monroe, 125 Va. 442, 99 S.E. 589; Miller Mfg. Co. v. Loving, 125 Va. 255, 99 S.E. 591; Chabot v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., 259 Pa. 504, 103 A. 283; Starnes v. Albion Mfg. Co., 147 N.C. 556, 61 S.E. 525, 17 L.R.A.(N.S.) 602, 15 Ann.Cas. 470; Stehle v....