Lesko v. Liondale Bleach Dye & Print Works

• Decision Date: 17 June 1919
• Citation: 107 A. 275
• Parties: LESKO v. LIONDALE BLEACH DYE & PRINT WORKS.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

107 A. 275

LESKO

v. LIONDALE BLEACH DYE & PRINT WORKS.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

June 17, 1919.

Action by Meri Lesko, guardian of Andrew Kline, against the Liondale Bleach Dye & Print Works. On defendant's rule to show cause after verdict for plaintiff. Rule discharged.

Argued November term, 1918, before GUMMERE, C. X, and SWAYZE and TRENCHARD, JJ.

King & Vogt, of Morristown, for the rule.

James H. Bolitho, of Rockaway, opposed.

GUMMERE, C. J. The defendant company operates a large laundering plant at Rockaway in this state. Some time in 1916, Andrew Kline, the ward of the plaintiff, was employed by the company, and in June of that year was put to work upon a washing or laundering machine. His specific work was to keep the edge of the goods which were run through the machine from curling or getting folded, as it passed over the rollers. His hand apparently became entangled in the machinery, was drawn in between two of the rollers, and crushed. At the time of the accident, Kline was under 16 years of age; but this fact was not known to the defendant. On the contrary, Kline himself, at the time of his employment, represented to the company's superintendent that he was then over 16 years old.

This suit is based upon the common-law liability of an employer to compensate an employs for injuries received in his employment by reason of the negligence of the master. The trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff.

The first ground upon which we are asked to make this rule absolute is that since the enactment of chapter 95 of the Laws of 1911, commonly known as the Workmen's Compensation Act, that statute provides the only means by which an injured employe can recover compensation from his employer for injuries received in the course of, and arising out of, his employment, and abrogates the common-law liability of the master for such injuries. But this statutory provision with relation to the recovery of compensation only applies where the contract of hiring is a valid one, and not where such a contract is prohibited by the statute law of the state; and this is the situation now presented. By an amendment passed in 1914 (P. L. p. 525) to the Factory Act of 1904, § 7 (P. L. p. 152), it is declared (section 4) that—

"No minor under the age of sixteen shall be employed, permitted or suffered to work at any of the following occupations or in any of the following positions: adjusting any belt to any machinery; * * * operating or assisting in operating any * * * laundering machinery," etc.

In the case of Hetzel, Jr., v. Wasson Piston Ring Co., 89 N. J. Law, p. 201, 98 Atl. 306, L. R, A. 1917D, 75, it was declared by the Court of Errors and Appeals that, where an infant was...