Pinoza v. N. Chair Co.

• Decision Date: 18 February 1913
• Citation: 152 Wis. 473,140 N.W. 84
• Parties: PINOZA v. NORTHERN CHAIR CO.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

152 Wis. 473

140 N.W. 84

PINOZA

v.NORTHERN CHAIR CO.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Feb. 18, 1913.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Ozankee County; Martin L. Lueck, Judge.

Action by John Pinoza, an infant, by John Ermenc, as guardian ad litem, against the Northern Chair Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Action to recover for a personal injury.

According to the complaint plaintiff, a boy between fourteen and sixteen years of age, while at work for defendant for pay in its chair factory, February 2, 1911, assisting in operating and working around a planer, called also a “sticker” and wood shaper machine in an insufficiently lighted room and in the regular performance of his duties, was injured by his right hand being caught in the machine and drawn against knives forming a part thereof by reason of which he lost the four fingers of such hand and was also injured otherwise, this being proximately caused by employment of plaintiff contrary to section 1728a, Stats., as amended by chapter 338, Laws of 1909, and want of ordinary care otherwise on the part of defendant, such want of care in addition to the violation of the law stated being the maintenance of the machine in operation in an insufficiently lighted room, attended in part by persons of the age of plaintiff, such machinery having rapidly revolving uncovered and unguarded knives so located as to render likely such an accident as the one which occurred.

There was an answer admitting that plaintiff was employed by defendant, denying that the employment was in violation of law, alleging that permission was duly obtained in respect to the matter and that it was in force at the time of the injury, putting in issue the allegations of negligence and those as to plaintiff being required to work about the machine and pleading contributory negligence.

The jury found as follows:--Plaintiff was injured while actually working removing manufactured articles from the machine as they fell therefrom. Defendant did not negligently fail to furnish plaintiff a safe place to work. It negligently failed to properly guard the knives. It negligently failed to sufficiently warn and instruct plaintiff as to the dangers incident to his employment. Defendant's negligence was the proximate cause of the injury. Plaintiff was not guilty of any want of ordinary care proximately contributing to the injury. He was damaged to the extent of $1,200. The trial court held that there was evidence to carry all such matters to the jury. The operation in progress at the time of the injury was the shaping of chair legs and spindles. Plaintiff's work consisted in taking the shaped articles away from the machine and piling them some twelve or fifteen feet away. In doing so, as there was evidence to indicate, he put his hand into an opening so as to come in contact with the knives on the lower planer head with substantially the consequences complained of. The trial court held that the employment of plaintiff to do the work he was engaged in was within the prohibition of section 1728a, as amended by chapter 338, Laws of 1909. Judgment was rendered on the verdict, regardless of that feature respecting contributory negligence upon the theory that, since plaintiff was employed in violation of the prohibitory statute, whether he was guilty of contributory negligence or not, was immaterial.Bowler & Bowler, of Sheboygan, and J. W. Collins, of Port Washington, for appellant.

Glicksman, Gold & Corrigan, of Milwaukee, for respondent.

MARSHALL, J. (after stating the facts as above).

[1][2] The statute claimed to have been violated is as follows:--

“No child under the age of sixteen years shall be employed * * * at adjusting any belt or in oiling or assisting in oiling, wiping or cleaning any machinery when the same is in motion or in operating or assisting in operating or taking material from any circular or band saw, * * * wood-shaper, wood-joiner, planer, sand paper or wood polishing machine. * * *

Nor shall any such child be employed in any other employment dangerous to life or limb. * * *”

Any one “who” shall violate “any of the provisions of this act” “shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not less than twenty-five dollars nor more than one hundreddollars for each offense, or imprisoned in the county jail not longer than thirty days.”

By another provision, corporations are made liable the same as natural persons and a method provided for enforcing such liability, and by a further provision parents and guardians are made likewise liable for suffering or permitting any such violation.

It must be conceded that defendant acted in defiance of the written law in employing plaintiff and that if such circumstance rendered the defense of contributory negligence unavailing, as the trial court decided, the judgment must be affirmed.

As suggested on the oral argument, it seems that the logic of Pizzo v. Wiemann et al., 149 Wis. 235, 134 N. W. 899, 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 678, might well rule this case in favor of respondent. It is difficult to see why the principle there stated and applied does not exactly fit the situation now presented. The court then dealt with a law designed to conserve child life and safety. To that end such law prohibited the doing of a particular act which experience had taught to be dangerous, particularly, to children. The Legislature deemed the object of the law so important that any violation thereof was made punishable by imprisonment in the county jail, not exceeding six months, or by both fine and imprisonment. The enactment in question belongs to the same class of police regulations.

The court distinguished the action before from one for damages caused by...