Honlahan v. New Am. File Co.
| Decision Date | 26 July 1890 |
| Citation | 20 A. 268,17 R.I. 141 |
| Parties | HONLAHAN v. NEW AMERICAN FILE Co. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Petition for new trial.
Hugh J. Carroll and Thomas J. McParlin, for plaintiff. Nicholas Van Slyck and Cyrus M. Van Slyck, for defendant.
The plaintiff, a minor, then 11 years of age, was employed by the defendant in its manufacturing establishment, and while so employed sustained the injury on account of which he brings this suit. His work was to place flies to dry upon steam-pipes, which were over or near a tank used for heating paste. The tank, when not in use, was covered by a board. While the plaintiff was at work, by the turning of the board when he stepped upon it, or by accidentally knocking it away, his foot went down into the tank, and he was scalded. After verdict in his favor the defendant petitions for a new trial, upon the ground of erroneous rulings. The defendant requested the court to rule that the employment of a child under 12 years of age in a manufacturing establishment, being prohibited by statute, was illegal; and consequently the plaintiff cannot recover, because there could be no relation of master and servant between the parties, and no duty owed by the defendant, as master, to the plaintiff. This request was based upon Pub. St. c. 169, § 21, which prohibited the employment of a child under 12 years of age in a manufacturing establishment. In view of the frequent changes in statutes, it is perhaps not strange that it escaped the notice of the counsel for the defendant that this section was expressly repealed by Pub. Laws c. 363, § 18. This last chapter was also repealed by chapter 649, Id., which provides (section 5) that no child under 10 years of age shall be employed in any manufacturing, mechanical, or mercantile establishment, or by any telegraph or telephone company in this state, during the time that the public schools of the town or city in which the child may reside are in session. In this case, the child being 11 years of age, the employment was not prohibited by the existing law.
The defendant also requested the court to instruct the jury that if the boss told the boy to put his files on the steam-pipes at another place, and not to get on the tank, and the boy disobeyed the order, by reason of which the accident happened, the jury should find a verdict for the defendant. The court allowed this request, with the qualification that the warning or direction must have been such' as to give notice of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mayott v. Norcross
...73 N. Y. 585; Coombs v. Cordage Co., 102 Mass. 596, 3 Am. Rep. 506; Stafford v. Railroad Co., 94 Me. 178, 47 Atl. 148; Honlahan v. Pile Co., 17 R. I. 141, 20 Atl. 268; and numerous other cases which might be cited. But in all of these eases the doctrine that, where it clearly appears that t......
-
Truntle v. North Star Woolen-Mill Co
... ... Co., 102 Mass ... 572; Chicago Anderson Pressed Brick Co. v ... Reinneiger, 140 Ill. 334; Tagg v. McGeorge, 155 ... Pa. St. 368; Honlahan v. New Am. File Co., 17 R. I ... 141; Jones v. Florence Mining Co., 66 Wis. 277; ... Thompson v. Johnston Bros. Co., 86 Wis. 576; ... Rolling ... ...
-
Day v. Achron
...a person of her age and experience in the business intelligently to appreciate the danger attending its performance. Honlahan v. File Co., 17 R. I. 141, 20 Atl. 268, adopts the same doctrine. In Bailey, Mast. & S. p. 112, the learned author, in speaking of the duties of the master, says: "T......
- Vose v. Newport St. Ry. Co.