The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-12-26
LAW LESSONS:
EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES.
BY Albert 5. Bolles, LII d.
xI.

The employment of minors raises some
questions Of the highest importance con-
corning the duties of employers. Some Oh
these were considered In our last article,
but others stili remain worthy OF notice
when He Knows the Danger HIS As
sumes the Risk.
We have already set forth the duty OF
an employer to instruct those OF youthtui
years employed BY him. it follows tnat
after minor has been instructed or
warned Of the danger he Is about 70 IN
cur. ana undertakes the employment, he
assumes the risk Ike any other en-
pIoye This rule was applied by The SUI
preme court of Missouri IN the case of q
minor who was a brakeman on freight
train and was killed while at his brake
upon the top of a freight car IN passing
through a bridge, the cross timbers of
which were so low that they struck his
head The accident happened In the day
time He had been employed by the
railroad company about three weeks and
had passed this bridge every day during
the time He had been repeatedly warn
ed to look out for this and other bridges,
and when last seen he was sitting on his
brake and facing the bridge not far of.
The court said eli would almost seem that
that he committed suicide his conduct
was so reckless.
when n child Need Not he Instructed
Again, when child knows Of the dam
ger his employer Is not required 70 IN
strrct him. This point was settled long
ago. although the cases are constantly
happening In which 1t is applied. In one
OF them boy 10 years old was employed
IN a wooden mill to operate machine
TO shear the nap off cloth. He had been
instructed I'm the use of the machine al
though he testified that he did not fully
understand the danger. The court said
that n he undertook the work knowing
the danger his employer was not liable,
although the accident might have been
prevented by having guards to the ma
chine. In another case a boy II years old
was set TO work on a machine for bleach
ing cloth. The operating of IL was sim
pie and he worked for two weeks with
out accident Then finger was injured
by putting II In between a roll ana
hot cylinder In order to smooth the edge
of the cloth. For the period of six months
he had been at work on a machine quite
similar 70 this. The supreme court. IN re-
viewing the case remarked: I'm view OF
the plaintiffs age and experience prior
to the time of the accident no duty then
rested with his employer 70 give him in
structions In reference to the risk of pos
eible injury. II could not be deemed nec-
essary at that time to tell him that II he
should put his hand In between the cloth
ana the revolving cylinder just at or just
before the place where the cloth came in
contact with the cylinder there was dam
ger that his hand would be caught
Outside Instruction.
Another principle may be stated. II the
employer OF a minor IL negligent in not
instructing him and he receives all needful
information from other sources he has no
cause OF complaint on this score against
his employer. This rule was applied to a
boy by the courts Of Minneapolis. He was
n tn utfs !. anriipg nv chine Ia
a wooden mill There were about forty OF
these machines in the room where he was
set 70 work, The foreman told him TO see
what the other operators did, and he was
put 10 charge of five machines Having
been injured by not keeping his shirt
sleeves out OF the clutch OF a machine.
he sued his employer to recover for the
injury. He claimed that his employer gave
him no Instructions how to do his work.
yet admitted that he knew how to do II
through watching others. They told him.
an.cng other things. to keep. his shirt
sleeves rolled up to prevent them from
Eetting. into the rollers. He testified that
IN his arm. and did not know but that he
could jerk his sleeve out" II liz utterly
inconceivabie," said the court that a
n BOY o. MS age .., supposed that The pre-
lection OF his shirt, and not OF his per-
SON" After declaring an employers duty
70 give neesdfui instructions. 20. youthful
employees the court adds: mo duty rests
upon a master to notify even minor OF
the ordinary risks and dangers OF his oc-
cupntion, which the latter actually knows
ana appreciates, or which are so open
and apparent that one OF his age and
capacity would. under like circumstances
by exercise OF ordinary care. know and
appreciate.
Positions which Children Cannot
Fili-stgnaiimx.
There are positions which boys are IN
competent TO al and for which they
ought not to be employed. To employ
them, therefore for such places Is clear
negligence on the part OF their employers.
who may be injured through hts incom-
potency. In one OF the cases requiring
the application Of this rrincple b K.
IA years old was employed 10 signal an
engineer who ran mn engine that was
used In unloading coal In a vessel There
We're men In the vessel who filcd buckets
with coal and attached them to n rope.
and when they were ready tho boy gave
the signal 10 the engineer 20 draw them
up An accident having happened TO one
OF them through the boys neglect or In
claiming that Il was negligent In employ
ing the boy for such work The court
OF tender years 20 perform duties involv-
require Judgment discretion ana care
Ereater than Is usually possessed by boys
OF such age. can he upheld for mo-
maut" The principal question In the
case was did the company knowingly en-
pioy boy incompetent 10 do such work 2
and the court OF review thought the com
pany WAS guilty ''rhe duty ~ giving the
hoi~tinR signal 80 the engineer required
tho exercise oc good degree ~ 1udg-
mont and discretion and constant care
aud watchlulness 10 IS common knowi-
edge that while boy of Il or 10 years
81 age ha8N s'f'ssoFs and bs canahis %
exercising these qualities, yet a large
percentage ~ such bows DO not possess
them az are not capable 81 exercising
them continuously" THAT the h0y en-
pioycd by the caai company u give the
signal was properly qualified was not
clearly proved nv the fact that he had
performed the duty IN "a proper way for
week
in another case a hoy not Il years old
WINS employed IN a quarry 10 repeat 20
the engineer the eiagnal given "a him hy
workmen. ore az them having been killcd
through the boys nerllgsncr. his wife
tried "a show that the company MAS
ncgltgcnt in employing a boy 70 40 such
work The caurt thought otherwise The
work had always been performed hv
boys and this one had frequently acted
~ this way before, as the UNFORTUNATE
man knew Sc she failed IN her case.
Tciesraphing.
Az interesting case has been decided