Brand v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
| Decision Date | 01 November 1912 |
| Citation | 59 So. 956,64 Fla. 184 |
| Parties | BRAND v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Hillsborough County; F. M. Robles, Judge.
Action by Ralph Brand, by his next friend, against the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company and the Atlantic Land & Improvement Company. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.
Syllabus by the Court
Where in an action for a negligent personal injury, the declaration, in effect, alleges that the plaintiff, an employé, was about 14 years of age, that he was without knowledge or experience in the dangerous work assigned to him by defendants, and that because of his youth and inexperience he did not know or appreciate the risks and dangers of the employment, such allegations are essential elements in the cause; and a plea averring that the plaintiff was not free from fault, with other averments in support that do not make an issue as to the capacity of the plaintiff to appreciate the risks and dangers of the employment, is not good against a specific ground of a demurrer that 'the said plea fails to charge or allege that the plaintiff was of sufficient age or understanding to appreciate any warning or danger communicated to him by language or appearance.'
While a sufficient warning of an employé as to the dangers of an employment is a duty imposed by law upon an employer, such warning does not relieve the employer of liability for an injury caused by the youth and inexperience of an employé put at a dangerous work by the employer.
Whether a youth of about 14 years of age has capacity to appreciate the risks and dangers of the employment stated in the declaration, so as to render him subject to the rule that contributory negligence bars a recovery, depends upon the age, the mental and physical attainments, the experience, and other conditions affecting the conduct, of the youth, as well as the character of the work and the circumstances of the injury.
Where error in sustaining a plea apparently influenced the finding and sustaining of a verdict that is not supported by the evidence and the law applicable thereto, a new trial should be granted.
COUNSEL Hilton S. Hampton, of Tampa, and A. H. King, of Jacksonville, for plaintiff in error.
Sparkman & Carter, of Tampa, for defendants in error.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, there was verdict and judgment for defendant corporations, and the plaintiff minor, by next friend, took writ of error.
The declaration alleges, in effect, that the plaintiff, a minor aged about 14 years, was by his father hired to the defendants to do light and simple work in a phosphate-loading business, such as a child of his age could perform without risk or injury from the dangerous machinery employed at the plant where such business was conducted; that the plaintiff was without knowledge or experience in the doing of any kind of dangerous work, particularly the work to which he was subsequently put by the defendant; that the plaintiff engaged in light, safe work for, perhaps, 10 days when the defendants, without authority from or knowledge of his father, directed the plaintiff to quit the light and safe work he was performing, to wit, the cleaning of phosphate cars, and to go down into the pit of said plant, and to work in attending to the loading of the buckets on the endless chain used to lift the phosphate from the pit to the ships that in doing said work plaintiff stood beside cogs used in loading, and put loose phosphate into the buckets as they passed; that while so engaged plaintiff, not being sufficiently advised of the risks and dangers of the employment, and not appreciating the same because of his youth and inexperience, attempted to walk across the cogs and buckets on a narrow board provided for that purpose by the defendants, which board, because of the negligence of the defendants, was loose, insufficient, defective, and dangerous; that such board tilted under the plaintiff, whereby his foot was thrown against the cogs and seriously injured; that the same is a permanent injury to the plaintiff, which has cost him great suffering and expense. Damages were stated and claimed. A demurrer to the declaration was overruled. The defendants pleaded not guilty, and also 'for a second plea said defendant says that the said plaintiff was not free from fault when he was injured, as shown by the declaration, but, on the contrary thereof, says that it was the duty of the plaintiff to exercise ordinary care, prudence, and caution to prevent injury to himself, and that the said plaintiff did not exercise ordinary care, prudence, and caution, but, well knowing that there was a safe way of ingress and egress to and from the place where he was working, failed to use the same, and of his own volition attempted to step across the cogs mentioned in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coons v. Pritchard
...was 'too young to fully understand and appreciate the hazard and danger of the employment in which he was engaged.' In the Brand Case, 64 Fla. 184, 59 So. 956, there was a plea to declaration in which contributory negligence was offered as a defense, but the plea failed to allege that the p......
- Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Hinely-stephens Co.
-
Greer v. Illgen
... ... injury. Brand v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 64 Fla ... 184, 59 So. 956; ... ...
-
German-american Lumber Co. v. Barrett
...court in Brand v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 64 Fla. 184, 59 So. 956, are perfectly applicable to this case. It is there said, on page 189 of 64 Fla., on page 957 of South.: 'As a matter of fact an employé who is an inexperienced youth may not be free from fault when he is injured, yet in ......