Reaves v. Anniston Knitting Mills

Decision Date28 November 1907
Citation45 So. 702,154 Ala. 565
PartiesREAVES v. ANNISTON KNITTING MILLS.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Rehearing Denied Feb. 6, 1908.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Calhoun County; John Pelham, Judge.

Personal injury action by W. P. Reaves against the Anniston Knitting Mills for injury to his minor child. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

The substance of the pleadings is set out in the opinion of the court, except special pleas 10 and A, which were as follows "(10) Defendant says that said W. P. Reaves consented to said Ida L. Reaves' employment by defendant, and he thereby consented to accept any risk naturally incident to the work, whether the risk was known to him or not; and said Ida Reaves' injuries arose from a risk naturally incident to the work she was engaged in." "(A) That for the injuries to said Ida Reaves set out in said complaint said Ida Lee Reaves, by her next friend, W. P. Reaves, instituted suit against this defendant in the circuit court of Calhoun county, Ala., for $20,000 and at the spring term, 1905 recovered a judgment against this defendant in the circuit court of Calhoun county for the same injuries to her mentioned in said complaint, in the sum of $2,000, besides the costs in said suit, which judgment of $2,000 this defendant had paid to W. P. Reaves, as next friend of Ida L Reaves, and has also paid all costs in said suit. Wherefore this defendant pleads said judgment and the payment thereof in bar of this suit." There was judgment for defendant and plaintiff appeals. On cross-examination the defendant asked the witness Marjorie Locke, "Didn't you testify on a former trial, and is it not true that Mr. Pruitt, the foreman, told you that if Ida Lee came in to work with you that you would have to keep Ida Lee with you at the machine or you would have to send her home?" Objection being overruled, the witness answered, "Yes."

Tate & Walker, for appellant.

Willet & Willet, for appellee.

DOWDELL J.

This is an action by the father to recover damages for injuries received by his minor child because of the alleged wrongful and negligent acts of the defendant. The complaint contained eight counts, to which demurrers were interposed. The court overruled the demurrer to the first, third, fourth, and sixth counts, and sustained them as to the second, fifth, seventh, and eighth. After ruling on demurrers, the seventh and eighth counts were amended. On the issues submitted to the jury a verdict was returned in favor of the defendant, and from the judgment rendered on this verdict the present appeal is prosecuted by the plaintiff.

The first assignment of error on the record complains of the ruling of the trial court in sustaining the demurrer to the second count of the complaint. The gravamen of this count is the negligent failure of the defendant to instruct the plaintiff's child, who was a minor, inexperienced and immature, relative to the dangers incident to the employment while at work, or in going to and from her work. This duty was one that rested on the defendant, whether the child was employed with or without the parent's consent, and the negligent failure to perform it, being the proximate cause of the injury, would furnish a good cause of action to both the parent and child; the recoverable damages, however, in some respects varying in the two cases. Ala. Mineral R. R. Co. v. Marcus, 128 Ala. 355, 30 So. 679. The cause of action as stated in the count being predicated on the negligent failure to perform this duty, the averments in respect to the dangers incident to the employment were sufficiently certain, and the count was, therefore, not subject to the demurrer on the grounds specified, and the court erred in sustaining the same.

In the fifth count, to which a demurrer was sustained and here assigned as error, the cause of action is based solely on an alleged violation of the statute in employing the minor child of plaintiff to work in its factory. The averment is "The defendant, in violation of the laws of the state of Alabama, employed to work and did work in its factory Ida Lee Reaves, a daughter of the plaintiff, who was then and is now a minor between the ages of 9 and 10 years," etc. While the act approved February 25, 1903 (Gen. Acts 1903, p. 68), provides that a child under 10 years of age shall under no circumstances be employed about a factory or manufacturing establishment, and fixes a penalty for a violation of the statute, it does not follow that a father may maintain an action under any and all circumstances to recover for services lost to him by reason of an injury to his minor child, resulting from a violation of the statute. If he consents to the employment in violation of the law, he will not be permitted to profit by his own misconduct. Count 5 does not negative that the employment was with the knowledge and consent of ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • J. H. Burton & Sons Co. v. May
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • January 22, 1925
    ...... McCraw, 26 Ala. 189, 72 Am.Dec. 718; Reaves v. Anniston Knitting Mills, 154 Ala. 566, 45 So. 702;. Garrett v. L. & ......
  • Dusha v. Va. & Rainy Lake Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • February 20, 1920
    ...force. It finds support in Dickinson v. Stuart Colliery Co., 71 W. Va. 325, 76 S. E. 654,43 L. R. A. (N. S.) 335, and Reaves v. Anniston Knitting Mills, 154 Ala. 565,45 South. 702, and indirectly in Stryk v. Mnichowicz, 167 Wis. 265, 167 N. W. 246, 1 A. L. R. 297. Naturally enough no sympat......
  • Gulf & S. I. R. Co. v. Sullivan
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • May 28, 1928
    ...... . . Reeves. v. Anniston Knitting Mills, 154 Ala. 565, 45 So. 702. . . No. cause of ......
  • Dusha v. The Virginia & Rainy Lake Company
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • February 20, 1920
    ...... former not. [176 N.W. 483] . Berdos v. Tremont & Suffolk Mills, 209 Mass. 489, 95. N.E. 876, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 797; Elk Cotton Mills v. ...71 W.Va. 325, 76. S.E. 654, 43 L.R.A. (N.S.) 335, and Reaves v. Anniston. Knitting Mills, 154 Ala. 565, 45 So. 702, and indirectly. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT