Steel Car Forge Co. v. Chec

• Decision Date: 03 January 1911
• Docket Number: 1,694.
• Citation: 184 F. 868
• Parties: STEEL CAR FORGE CO. v. CHEC.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

184 F. 868

STEEL CAR FORGE CO. v. CHEC.

No. 1,694.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

January 3, 1911

Francis Lackner and Otto Butz (Amos C. Miller and C. E. Heckler, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.

The defendant in error, Andrew Chec, brought an action for personal injuries, which resulted, in the trial court, in a verdict and judgment against the Steel Car Forge Company for $12,000. This writ of error is sued out to reverse that judgment. The facts, so far as they are regarded as material and the errors assigned, are reviewed in the opinion.

Frank A. Rockhold and Francis X. Busch, for defendant in error.

Before SEAMAN and KOHLSAAT, Circuit Judges, and CARPENTER, District judge.

CARPENTER District Judge.

The first count in the declaration filed in the Circuit Court charged that the defendant, the Steel Car Forge Company managed and operated in the city of Hammond and state of Indiana, a factory with various machines and machinery for the purpose of manufacturing steel cars and other steel and iron products; that the plaintiff was a minor of the age of 15 years, and was employed, negligently and carelessly, by the defendant to work upon a drill press in its factory; that the press was a large machine composed of drills, cogwheels shafting, and other parts, and was operated rapidly by means of electricity; that at the time of the injury and negligence complained of there was in full force and effect a statute of the state of Indiana, as follows:

'8022. (7087b.) Children employes-- Affidavit of Age-- Register.-- 2. No child under fourteen years of age shall be employed in any manufacturing or mercantile establishment, mine, quarry, laundry, renovating works, bakery or printing office within this state. It shall be the duty of every person employing young persons under the age of sixteen years to keep a register, in which shall be recorded the name, birth-place, age, and place of residence of every person employed by him under the age of sixteen years; and it shall be unlawful for any proprietor, agent, foreman, or other person connected with a manufacturing or mercantile establishment, mine, quarry, laundry, renovating works, bakery or printing office to hire or employ any young person to work therein without there is first provided and placed on file in the office an affidavit made by the parent or guardian, stating the age, date and place of birth of said young person; if such young person have no parent or guardian, then such affidavit shall be made by the young person, which affidavit shall be kept on file by the employer, and said register and affidavit shall be produced for inspection on demand made by the inspector, appointed under this act. There shall be posted conspicuously in every room where young persons are employed, a list of their names, with their ages respectively. No young person under the age of sixteen years, who is not blind, shall be employed in any establishment aforesaid, who cannot read and write simple sentences in the English language, except during the vacation of the public schools in the city or town where such minor lives. The chief inspector of the department of inspection shall have the power to demand a certificate of physical fitness from some regular physician in the case of young persons who may seem physically unable to perform the labor at which they may be employed, and shall have the power to prohibit the employment of any minor that cannot obtain such certificate. ' Burns' Ann. St. 1908.

The first count also contained an averment that the plaintiff was not blind; that he could not read or write in the English language, and that at the time when the accident occurred the public schools were open, and that it was not then the vacation period of the public schools at the place where the plaintiff lived; that as a direct result of the illegal employment of the plaintiff, contrary to the provisions of the statute, the plaintiff, while exercising ordinary care for his own safety, was injured.

The evidence showed that the plaintiff was not blind at the time of the accident; that the public schools of Hammond, where the plaintiff lived, were then in session; that it was not the vacation period; and that the plaintiff could not read and write simple sentences in the English language. It also appeared that, while the plaintiff was over the age of 14 years, there was some controversy as to whether he was over or under 16 years of age at the time he was hurt.

The trial judge in charging the jury said:

'Coming back to the first theory of the plaintiff, the law which I referred to, prohibiting the employment of a person under 16 years of age in the occupation named, which list of occupations includes one in which this plaintiff was engaged at the time of this accident, that law provides that a person shall not

...