Seymour Dwight Thompson.

Commentaries on the law of negligence in all relations online

. (page 100 of 165)
Online LibrarySeymour Dwight ThompsonCommentaries on the law of negligence in all relations → online text (page 100 of 165)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

Div. (N. Y.) 54; s. c. 45 N. Y. Supp. with 'the knives of the machine,

875. was working within the scope of his

** Bast Line ftc. R. Co. v. Scott, 68 employment when injured, was a

Tex. 694; s. c. 5 S. W. Rep. 501. question for a jury: Bennett v. War-

• Oriental Invest Co. v. Sline, 17 ren, 70 N. H. 564; s. c. 49 Atl. Rep.


Digitized by LjOOQLC

4 Thomp, Neg.'J assumption of risk by the servant.

§ 4682. What Emergency will Justify the Servant in Quitting his
Begular Duties without Assuming the Bisks Arising from So Doing.

— Emergencies frequently arise where the servant, quitting his regu-
lar employment, is not imputable with contributory negligence nor
barred from recovering damages from his master, as matter of law,
provided that, while so acting, he is injured in consequence of some
defect or danger imputable to the negligence of the master, although,
but for the existence of such emergency, he would be barred from
recovering, on the ground of being a volunteer and of haviiig accepted
the risk. It was so held where a fireman on a Jocomotive-engine
knew, for some hours before a collision happened, that the engineer
was falling asleep, and assumed the duties of the engineer; 48 where
an employ^ in a mill stepped outside of the strict line of his (luty, in
good faith and in response to the call of the operator of a machine,
to replace a chain on a wheel in order to prevent the suspension of
the work of forty men, in the absence of the servants whose regular
duty it was to replace the chain, in which operation the employe* had
assisted on previous occasions ; 49 and where an employ^ of a coal-min-
ing company climbed upon an empty box-car to fasten the brake for
the purpose of preventing it from being driven against another car,
which his employer was loading on the same track, by still other cars
negligently switched by the railway company upon the same track
and coming at a high rate of speed. 60

§ 4683. Master under No Obligation to Use Diligence in Releasing
Volunteer Caught in a Machine. — The clima!x of the line of decisions
noted in a preceding paragraph, 51 which puts employes — even females
and children — who deviate slightly from the strict line of their em-
ployment, although acting in good faith and in the supposed perform-
ance of their duties, into the category of trespassers, intruders, or
bare licensees, and debars them f rpm recovering damages for injuries
proceeding from the plain negligence of their employer, is capped by
a decision to the effect that where a servant thus acts, and, in so

105. See also, Rosenbaum v. St of his negligence in remaining upon

Paul Ac. R. Co., 38 Minn. 173 (serv- the engine as he did would not be

ant riding on construction-train restricted, in point of time, to the

over defective track). moment of the collision which took

48 Carroll v. East Tennessee 6c. R. place, or immediately previous

Co., 82 Ga. 452; s. c. 10 S. B. Rep. thereto).

163; 6 L. R. A. 214; 41 Am. & Eng. "Mullin v. Northern Mill Co., 53

R. Cas. 307 (the conclusion being Minn. 29; s. c. 55 N. W. Rep. 1115.

that the question of negligence of M Weatherf ord Ac. R. Co. v. Dun-

the fireman in failing either to no- can, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 479; 8. c.

tify the conductor or to telegraph 31 S. W. Rep. 562.

as to his predicament, or both, was n Ante, § 4678.
for the jury, and that the question


Digitized by LjOOQLC


[2d Ed.

doing, is caught in a machine, the master is under no legal duty to
assist in extricating him from that position. In the opinion of the
court by Lumpkin, J., it is said: "The only duty arising from such
circumstances is one of humanity, and for a breach thereof, the law
does not, so far as we are informed, impose any liability." 52

Article V. Bisks Assumed bt Minors and Inexperienced



4685. Servant assumes only such

risks as would be discerni-
ble by a person of his age
and capacity.

4686. When minors ' assume the

risks of the employment

4687. When assumption of risk by

a minor presents a question
of fact for a jury.

4688. Contributory negligence of

minor employe.

4689. When minor servant does not

assume the risk, but master

4690. Rule where the minor Is or-

dered into a dangerous


service which he did not
undertake to perform.

4691. Minor assumes the risks of in-

juries from the negligence
of fellow servants.

4692. Parents assume what risks

with respect to their chil-

4693. Effect of servant misrepre-

senting his age or compe-
tency in order to obtain em-

4694. Risks assumed by inexperi-

enced servants who are not
. minors.

§ 4685. Servant Assumes Only Such Bisks as would be Discernible
by a Person of his Age and Capacity. — It is a part of the doctrine of
the assumption of risks that the servant assumes only such risks as are
discernible by a person of his age, capacity and experience, in the ex-
ercise of ordinary or reasonable care for his own safety, and having due
regard to all the conditions which surround him; 1 and it has been
added that this includes only such risks as are inherent in the busi-
ness and such as do not arise from the negligent failure of the master
to discharge his personal duties. 2 But this cannot be affirmed as a
general proposition of law with reference to permanent conditions, nor
open and obvious dangers to the servant, although due to the negli-
gence of the master. 8 The doctrine just stated applies only to those
unusual and extraordinary risks which the servant is not expected to

"Allen v. Hixson, 111 Ga. 460; s.
c. 36 S. E. Rep. 810.

1 Cherokee Ac. Coal Co. v. Britton,
3 Kan. App. 292; s. c. 45 Pac. Rep.

2 Cherokee Ac. Coal Co. v. Britton,
•Ante, § 4618.


Digitized by


4 Thomp. Neg.] assumption of risk by the servant.

anticipate, but which it is the duty of the master to foresee and guard
against. 4

§4686. When Minors Assume the Bisks of the Employment. —

The rule that an employ^ assumes the ordinaiy risks of the employ-
ment applies to minors as well as to adults, provided the minor has
sufficient age, intelligence and discretion to understand and appreciate
the risks to which he is exposed, and provided he has been adequately
instructed by the employer concerning the dangers of the employment,
in the observance of the duty to warn and instruct which the law puts
upon the employer, 5 in cases requiring such instruction; 6 or where

4 Reed v. Stockmeyer, 74 Fed. Rep.
186; s. c. 20 G. C. A. 381; 34 U. S.
App. 727.

'Ante, §§ 4055, et seq., 4091, et seq.

• Hardman-Harrison Milling Co. v.
Spehr, 145 111. 329;, s. c. 33 N. E.
Rep. 944; Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Egg-
man, 59 111. App. 680 (and is in-
formed of the dangerous nature of
the work) ; Nelson Man. Co. v. Stolt-
zenbury, 56 111. App. 628; Jones v.
Roberts, 57 111. App. 56 (or has ac-
quired the knowledge otherwise
than by instruction from the mas-
ter) ; McCarthy v. Mulgrew, 107
Iowa 76; s. c. 77 N. W. Rep. 527
(boy fifteen years of age, without
objection or promise of repair,
worked for three years with a ma-
chine with revolving iron rollers
placed within three-fourths of an
Inch of each other); DeLozier v.
Kentucky Lumber Co., 13 Ky. L.
Rep. 818; s. c. 18 S. W. Rep. 451
(no off. rep.) (depends upon his
capacity and fitness for the particu-
lar kind of labor upon which he
is employed when injured); Davis
v. Forbes, 171 Mass. 548; s. c. 51 N.
E. Rep. 20; 4 Am. Neg. Rep. 289
(boy assumed risk from a defective
stirrup-strap of a saddle provided
for his use, where, upon calling the
attention of the representative of
the employer thereto, the strap was
subjected to a test which was ap-
parently satisfactory both to the
representative and the boy, who had
been riding horses for two years,
and was presumably experienced
in matters pertaining to saddles and
riding-tackle); Probert v. Phipps,
149 Mass. 258; s. c. 21 N. E. Rep.
370 (boy fifteen years old, working
in a mill, injured by passing be-


tween two machines which barely
gave room to pass, of which he had
been cautioned and the danger of
which he knew)*; Silvia v. Saga-
more Man. Co., 177 Mass. 476; s. c.
59 N. E. Rep. 73; Sullivan v. Sim-
plex Electrical Co., 178 Mass. 35; s.
c. 59 N. E. Rep. 645 (representative
of master directed a boy of ordinary
intelligence to feed scrap rubber
into cylinders revolving closely to-
gether — told him that he might use
his fingers to press down the rub-
ber, — boy not thereby relieved of the
duty to guard against the obvious
danger of having his fingers caught
between the cylinders); McGinnis
v. Southern Canadian Bridge Co.,
49 Mich. 466; Palmer v. Har-
rison, 57 Mich. 182; s. c. 23 N.
W. Rep. 624 (injury from ma-
chinery, the dangerous nature of
which was manifest to any one);
Coins v. Chicago Ac. R. Co., 37
Mo. App. 676 (injury from mis-
shapen link and crooked coupling-
pin fastened in a draw-head); Mc-
Mahon v. O'Donnell, 32 Neb. 27; s.
c. 48 N. W. Rep. 824; Omaha Bot-
tling Co. v. Theiler, 59 Neb. 257; s.
c. 80 N. W. Rep. 821; Smith v. Ir-
win, 51 N. J. L. 507; s. c. 18 Atl.
Rep. 852; Carrington v. Mueller. 65
N. J. L. 244; s. c. 47 Atl. Rep. 564;
Dunn v. McNamee, 59 N. J. L. 498;
s. c. 37 Atl. Rep. 61; Evans v. Vogt
&c. Man. Co., 5 Misc. (N. Y.) 330;
s. c. 55 N. Y. St. Rep. 212; 25 N. Y.
Supp. 509; Hickey v. Taaffe, 105 N.
Y. 26; s. c. 12 N. E. Rep. 286; Mal-
sky v. Schumacher, 7 Misc. (N. Y.)
8; s. c. 56 N. Y. St. Rep. 840; 27 N.
Y. Supp. 331; Crown v. Orr, 140 N.
Y. 450; s. c. 55 N. Y. St. Rep. 834;
35 N. E. Rep. 648; rev'g s. c. 54 N.

Digitized by



[2d Ed.

the dangers are obvious, or as well known to him as to any others,
although he is not specially instructed; 7 or where the dangers are
obvious alike to master and servant. 8

Y. St Rep. 308; 24 N. Y. Supp. 620;
Monzi v. Friedllne, 33 App. Dlv. (N.
Y.) 217; s. c. 53 N. Y. Supp. 482
(boy seventeen years old Injured in
attempting to grease the cable of
an elevator while in motion, con-
trary to a statute forbidding an em-
ployer to permit an employ^ so to
do, — boy assumed the risk); Mc-
Gann v. Mathison, 12 Misc. (N. Y.)
214; s. c. 66 N. Y. St. Rep. 865; 33
N. Y. Supp. 263; Schiermann v.
Hammond Typewriter Co., 11 Misc.
(N. Y.) 646; s. c. 32 N. Y. Supp. 748;
Buckley v. Gutta Percha &c. Man.
Co.. 113 N. Y. 540; s. c. 23 N. Y. St
Rep. 618; O'Keefe v. Thorn (Pa.),
24 W. N. C. (Pa.) 379; s. c. 16 Atl.
Rep. 737 (no off. rep.); Sheetram
v. Trexler Stave &c. Co., 13 Pa.
Super. Ct 219 (boy of seventeen
presumed to have sufficient knowl-
edge to appreciate patent dangers
in the absence of proof to the con-
trary) ; Wojciechowski v. Spreckels
Sugar Ref. Co., 177 Pa. St. 67; s. c.
35 Atl. Rep. 596 (boy who, in the
performance of his duty, knowingly
and voluntarily steps upon a grat-
ing under which he knows there is
machinery, and upon which it is his
duty to empty sugar from bags, as-
sumes the risk of injury from the
grating giving way and allowing
him to fall into the machinery);
Pick v. Jackson, 3 Pa. Super. Ct
378; s. c. 39 W. N. C. (Pa.) 534;
Zurn v. Tetlow, 134 Pa. St. 213; s.
c. 19 Atl. Rep. 504; Williamson v.
Sheldon Marble Co., 66 Vt. 427; s. c.
29 Atl. Rep. 669 (death of a boy
sixteen years old, occasioned by his
fall from a ledge in a quarry where
he was working, the dangerous con-
dition of which, from the accumula-
tion of ice, was apparent) ; Schiefel-
bien v. Badger Paper Co., 101 Wis.
402; s. c. 77 N. W. Rep. 742; Luebke
v. Berlin Mach. Works, 88 Wis. 442;
s. c. 60 N. W. Rep. 711; 43 Am. St
Rep. 913 (boy sixteen years old as-
sumes a risk incident to his employ-
ment which is open and obvious,
and which he is capable of perceiv-
ing and fully appreciating, whether
he actually appreciates and compre-
hends it or not) ; Krieder v. Wiscon-

sin River Paper Ac. Co., 110 Wis.
645; s. c. 86 N. W. Rep. 662; Goff v.
Norfolk Ac. R. Co., 36 Fed. Rep.
299; E. S. Higgins Carpet Co. v.
O'Keefe, 79 Fed. Rep. 900; s. c. 25
C. C. A. 220; 51 U. S. App. 74 (boy
of fifteen who undertook to operate
a machine having unguarded cog-
wheels, with full knowledge of the
risk incident to the feeding or work-
ing about the machine consequent
upon the condition of the wheels
and the absence of guards) ; Cudahy
Packing Co. v. Marcan, 106 Fed.
Rep. 645; s. c. 45 C. C. A. 515; 54
L. R. A. 258 (minor assumes to the
same extent as an adult the or-
dinary dangers and risks of his em-
ployment which he actually knows
and appreciates, and those that are
so apparent and open that one of
his age, experience, and capacity
would, in the exercise of ordinary
care, know and appreciate them.

'Toledo Ac. R. Co. v. Trimble, 8
Ind. App. 333; s. c. 35 N. B. Rep.
716; Greef v. Brown, 7 Kan. App.
394; 8. c. 51 Pac. Rep. 926; Dillman
v. Hamilton, 14 Mont Co. L. Rep.
(Pa.) 92 (boy twelve years old in-
jured by set-screw projecting five-
eighths of an inch from a revolving
shaft — no recovery because machine
was of the ordinary character in
common use, and the danger, if any,
was obvious, although he had not
been warned); Day v. Achron, 23
R. I. 627; s. c. 50 Atl. Rep. 654 (girl
sixteen years old, who had worked
at a mangle having no guards to it
once or twice a week for six or
eight weeks, and who testified that
she understood how her fingers
could be caught and what the effect
would be if they were caught, but
had not been warned of the danger,
was held to have assumed the risk,
— Tillinghast, J., dissenting on the
ground that it is a question for a
jury whether a child sixteen years
old, although of ordinary intelli-
gence, fully realizes and appreciates
the extent of even visible dangers).

•Bvansville &c. R. Co. v. Hender-
son, 134 Ind. 636; s. c. 33 N. E. Rep.
1021. So, where a boy twenty years
old, though not an experienced


Digitized by


4 Thomp. Neg.] assumption of risk by the servant.

§ 4687. When Assumption of Bisk by a Minor Presents a Ques-
tion of Fact for a Jury. — In many cases it has been held to be a
question of fact for a jury whether the mindr employ6 had sufficient
age, intelligence and experience to enable him to appreciate the dan-
ger so as to put him in a position of accepting the risks ordinarily
incident to the service ; 9 and whether he had been sufficiently warned

miner, was engaged in removing
rock which waB falling at intervals,
by means of a long hook; and a
rock fell outside of the protecting
timbers, but struck a pile of rock
and was deflected underneath the
timbers, killing him, — it was held
that the cause of death was one of
the dangers which he must have
known, and the risk of which he as-
sumed: Moon-Anchor Consol. Gold
Mines v. Hopkins, 111 Fed. Rep.
298; s. c. 49 C. C. A. 347.

•Mary Lee Coal &c. Co. v. Cham-
bliss, %1 Ala. 171; s. c. 53 Am. ft
Eng. R. Cas. 254; 11 South. Rep.
897 (whether a railway fireman
seventeen years old, who had been
in the company's employ only two
months and had never before un-
dertaken to throw a switch, as-
sumed the incidental risk of throw-
ing a switch in the regular switch-
man's absence, in obedience to the
order of the engineer by whom he
was employed, and under whose or-
ders he was) ; Emma Cotton Seed
Oil Co. v. Hale, 56 Ark. 232; s. c.
19 S. W. Rep. 600; Davis v. St.
Louis &c. R. Co., 53 Ark. 117; s. c.
13 S. W. Rep. 801; 7 L. R. A. 283
(whether or not a youth employed
in coupling cars had, or ought to
have had, knowledge or apprecia-
tion of the danger incident to the
use of guard-rails with no blocking
between them and the main rails) ;
Wynne v. Conklin, 86 Ga. 40; s. c.
12 S. E. Rep. 183 (minor thirteen
years of age); Ziegler v. Gotzian,
86 Minn. 290; s. c. sub nom. Zeigler
v. Gotzian, 90 N. W. Rep. 387
(where a boy sixteen and one-half
years old was ordered to wash the
outsides of windows in the third sto-
ry of a factory where he had been
employed for five months — question
for jury whether he knew the place
he was required to work was danger-
ous, and whether he understood the
risks) ; McCarragher v. Rogers, 120
N. Y. 526; s. c. 24 N. E. Rep. 812;
31 N. Y. St Rep. 595 (where the at-


tention of a boy employed in a
paper-box factory to work at a
printing and stamping press had
been called to the fapt of an injury
sustained by another boy engaged
in the same work, a few months be-
fore — question for jury whether the
child was negligent in continuing to
operate a machine although he
knew it was out of repair) ; Wyman
v. Orr, 62 N. Y. Supp. 195; s. c. 47
App. Div. (N. Y.) 136 (risk of in-
jury from rollers generating elec-
tricity, which tended to draw paper
between them, of which a fifteen-
year-old boy was not aware and was
not warned); Latorre v. Central
Stamping Co., 9 App. Div. (N. Y.)
145; s. c. 41 N. Y. Supp. 99 (danger
of turpentine taking fire from dip-
ping heated spoons therein, not, as
matter of law, obvious to an ignor-
ant Italian boy fourteen years old,
who had been engaged in the work
only three days) ; Dingee v. Unrue,
98 Va. 247; b. c. 35 S. E. Rep. 794;
Neilon v. Marinette 6c Paper Co., 75
Wis. 579; s. c. 44 N. W. Rep. 772
(whether the danger in wiping the
gearing of machinery while in mo-
tion was so apparent to a young boy
that in following the foreman's in-
structions he assumed the risks inci-
dent thereto, and whether he was
properly cautioned as to such dan-
ger) ; Renne v. United States
Leather Co., 107 Wis. 305; s. c. 83 N.
W. Rep. 473. Where a belt used for
conveying oil-cake to a crusher be-
came choked, and the foreman called
an inexperienced minor, who was
employed in trucking oil-cake to the
crusher, to assist in unchoking it,
and directed such servant to get on
the crusher and press on the belt
with his foot, in doing which his
foot Blipped into the crusher, it was
held that, in view of his inexperi-
ence, and the fact that he was work-
ing under the immediate direction
of the foreman, and had little op-
portunity to consider the act, a ver-
dict in his favor should be sus-

Digitized by



[2d Ed,

and instructed concerning the danger to put upon him the acceptance
of the risk ; 10 or whether he comprehended the risk sufficiently that
warning or instruction was not necessary. 11

§4688. Contributory Negligence of Minor Employed — In many
cases the question will be dealt with from the standpoint of the con-
tributory negligence of the minor employ^; and the conclusion will
be that he cannot recover damages from his employer merely because
he is a minor, where the injury is caused by reason of his own negli-
gence or inattention to what he is doing, whereby, in the prosecution
of his work, he exposes himself unnecessarily to danger and is in-
jured. 12 The test by which to determine whether the minor employ^
is imputable with contributory negligence* has been already pointed
out. 18 It is to hold the minor servant responsible for the exercise of
such care and attention as a minor of ordinary intelligence, of the
same age, is capable of exercising under similar circumstances. 14
Sometimes what is really contributory negligence is treated under the
head of assumption of the risk, where the risk assumed by the servant
was that arising from a special act or omission, and not a general
risk of the employment. 15

§ 4689. When Minor Servant does Hot Assume the Risk, but Mas-
ter Liable. — We may start out with the proposition that it is an
actionable wrong for an employer to expose a minor to a hazardous

tained: Waxahachie Oil Co. v. Mc-
Lain, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 334; s. c.
66 S. W. Rep. 226.

10 Lynch v. Allen, 160 Mass. 248;
s.* c. 35 N. E. Rep. 550 (riBk of an
embankment caving in; inexperi-
enced employ^ supposed that the su-
perintendent would warn him when
there was danger of its falling).

"Chopin v. Badger Paper Co., 83
Wis. 192; s. c. 53 N. E. Rep. 452
(whether a boy eighteen years old,
injured while working around ma-
chinery, comprehended the risk
from his previous experience with
machinery, so that warning or in-
struction from his employer was
unnecessary* is a question for the

"Morewood Co. v. Smith, 25 Ind.
App. 264; s. c. 57 N. E. Rep. 199;
Atlas Engine Works v. Randall, 100
Ind. 293; Stewart v. Patrick, 5 Ind.
App. 50; s. c. 30 N. E. Rep. 814.

"Vol. I, § 308.

"Phillips v. Michael, 11 Ind. App.
672; s. c. 39 N. E. Rep. 669. The
mere fact of working in a dangerous
place by order of his superior, will
not, it has been held, put upon a
boy sixteen years of age the impu-
tation of contributory negligence as
matter of law: Schultz v. Moon, 33
Mo. App. 329.

"For example, it waB held that a
boy over seventeen years old, em-
ployed to feed circular saws, as-
sumed the increased risk arising
from attempting to clean the ma-
chinery without stopping it, where
he had had two years' experience,
and knew that he was entitled to
stop the machinery for the purpose
of cleaning it: Larson v. Knapp,
Stout &c. Co., 98 Wis. 178; s. c. 73
N. W. Rep. 992. The real question
was whether he waB guilty of con-
tributory negligence in attempting
to clean the machine while it was
in motion.


Digitized by


4 Thomp. Neg.] assumption of risk by the servant.

employment without giving him suitable warning and instruction; 1 *
and, in cases of minors not possessing sufficient age and intelligence
to understand the danger, although with instruction, that it is an
actionable wrong to put them to a dangerous service however much
they may have been instructed. 17 With this premise we may take a
step further, and, stating the rule in general terms, conclude that the
capacity of the minor employ^ is the measure of his responsibility;
and hence that, if he has not the capacity to foresee and to avoid the
danger to which he may be exposed, negligence will not be imputed
to him from the fact that he unwittingly exposes himself to the dan-
ger. 18 Another proposition is, that a minor employ6 is not presumed —
at least as matter of law — to have the same knowledge and appre-
ciation of the risks attending the employment that an adult would

§ 4690. Rule where the Minor is Ordered into a Dangerous Serv-
ice which he Bid Hot Undertake to Perform. — If a minor servant is
ordered to do work which he did not undertake to perform, or which
his parent, in hiring him out, did not undertake that he should per-
form, then the dangers attending the new service are such as he does
not necessarily assume. 20

§ 469L Minor Assumes the Risks of Injuries from the Negligence
of Fellow Servants. — Subject to the foregoing limitations, a minor
employ^ assumes the risks of injuries from the negligence of fellow
servants, — those risks being regarded as incident to the service, —
where, under the same circumstances, an adult employ^ would be held
to have assumed them. 21

§ 4692. Parents Assume what Risks with Respect to their Chil-
dren.— A parent who hires his minor child out to service assumes the

"Ante, § 4091, et seq. « Rep. 874 (another case where this

1T Taylor v. Wootan, 1 Ind. App. was held of a boy Blxteen years old,

188; s. c. 27 N. B. Rep. 502. with good Illustrative facts).

w Strawbridge v. Bradford, 128 * National Enameling Co. v.

Pa. St. 200; s. c. 18 Atl. Rep. 346; Brady, 93 Md. 646; s. c. 49 Atl. Rep.

24 W. N. C. (Pa.) 536; 47 Phila. 845.

Leg. Int. 203; 20 Pitts. L. J. (N. »Hefferen v. Northern Pac. R.

S.) 143. Co., 45 Minn. 471; s. c. 48 N. W.

"White v. San Antonio Water- Rep. 1; Stephen v. Stevens, 66 Hun

works Co., 9 Tex. Civ. App. 465; (N. Y.) 634; s. c. 49 N. Y. St. Rep.

s. c. 29 S. W. Rep. 252 (so reasoned 850; 21 N. Y. Supp. 721 (minor em-

with respect to a boy sixteen years ploy6 put his hand into a dangerous

old); Kucera v. Merrill Lumber Co., place at the direction of a fellow

91 Wis. 637; s. c. 2 Am. 6 Eng. workman, and it was caught in a

Corp. Cas. (N. S.) 590; 65 N. W. buzz-saw).


Digitized by LjOOQLC


[2d Ed.

ordinary risks of the service, in so far as it affects his own right to
recover damages in case the child is injured therein. 22

§ 4693. Effect of Servant Misrepresenting his Age or Competency
in Order to Obtain Employment. — If, in order to obtain employment,
the servant, being, a minor, represents . to the master that he is of
age, and there is nothing in the servant's appearance to indicate the

Online LibrarySeymour Dwight ThompsonCommentaries on the law of negligence in all relations → online text (page 100 of 165)