Casperson v. Michaels

• Decision Date: 17 February 1911
• Citation: 142 Ky. 314,134 S.W. 200
• Parties: CASPERSON v. MICHAELS.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

134 S.W. 200

142 Ky. 314

CASPERSON v. MICHAELS.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

February 17, 1911

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Common Pleas Branch Second Division.

Action by Margaret Michaels, by her next friend, against Louis C Casperson. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

O'Neal & O'Neal and Edwards, Ogden & Peak, for appellant.

Geo Weissinger Smith, for appellee.

CLAY C.

Appellee Margaret Michaels, suing by her next friend, brought this action against appellant, Louis C. Casperson, to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been due to the negligence of appellant. The jury returned a verdict in her favor for $1,500. From the judgment based thereon this appeal is prosecuted.

Appellant, at the time appellee was injured, operated a laundry plant on Portland avenue in the city of Louisville. Among the machines he had in his plant was, a large mangle which was used for the purpose of laundering sheets, table cloths, etc. The distance from the front to the rear of the mangle was about 5 feet; its width was about 7 feet, and its height about 4 1/2 feet. The goods were fed into the front part by girls, and were passed through the machine and out at the rear. They then fell upon a table where there were other girls who received and folded them. The front part of the machine was provided with guards. The rear part was open, and there is some evidence that this was necessary for the proper operation of the machine.

Appellee, Margaret Michaels, was 14 years and 5 months old at the time she was injured. She had two sisters who worked in the laundry. Appellant needed additional help, and spoke to one of Margaret's sisters on the subject. The next morning the two sisters brought Margaret to the laundry, and she was immediately put to work at the mangle. Her duty was to feed the cloths into the mangle. She began work about five days before the accident, which occurred on March 18, 1909. On that day she arrived at the laundry a few minutes before 7 o'clock. Upon reaching the laundry she went immediately to the dressing room. Her sisters remained in the dressing room while she went out to the mangle and stood nearby, waiting for the signal to begin her morning's work. The mangle was started at 15 minutes to seven in order to heat it and have it ready for work at 7 o'clock. Appellee describes the accident in the following language: "I was standing there--my hands were cold, but I wasn't shivering though, and I put my fingers up there to get them warm and some one spoke to me, and I turned around and my fingers went on in there, and Sadie Sprinkle happened to be coming out of the door or standing in the door, and she kept pulling on my arm to keep it from going in any further, and my sister--a girl went in and told the other girls that some girl, had her hand in the mangle, and they all came out there." She further testified that she had seen a boy with his hands where she had put hers, and she thought she could put her hand up there to get it warm. She did not put her hand on the roller, but merely tapped her fingers on it. In doing this she did not know there was any danger, although she knew the roller was warm and would burn. Her hand was drawn between the revolving cylinder and the top guard, and was severely injured.

In the year 1908 the Legislature passed an act entitled "An act to regulate child labor and to make the provisions thereof effective." Laws 1908, c. 66. This act was approved March 18, 1908, and is set forth in chapter 18 of the Kentucky statutes. The provisions material to this controversy are contained in the various subsections of section 331a. Subsection 1 (Russell's St. § 3237) provides that no child under 14 years of age shall be employed, permitted, or suffered to work in or in connection with any factory, workshop, mine, mercantile establishment, etc. Subsection 2 (Russell's St. § 3238) permits the employment of children between 14 and 16 years of age in the event a certificate of employment is obtained, and prescribes when and under what circumstances a certificate may be issued, and who shall issue the certificate. Subsection 11 (Russell's St. § 3247) provides: "No child under the age of sixteen years shall be employed at sewing belts, or to assist in sewing belts, in any capacity whatever, nor shall any child adjust any belt to any machinery; *** nor shall they operate or assist in operating laundry machinery. ***" The trial court submitted the case to the jury on the theory that appellant had violated the provisions of subsection 11 in employing appellee to work at the mangle, and refused to permit appellant to introduce in evidence a certificate authorizing appellee's employment.

One of the questions raised on this appeal is the alleged error of the court in failing to permit the certificate of employment to be introduced in evidence. A careful reading of the section of the statutes, however, convinces us...