The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-12-19

experience are employed to work with
dangerous machines IL Is the duty Of the
employer to give suitable instructions as
70 the manner of using them, and warm
ing as to the hazard of careiesSntss in
their use. II the employer neglee. this
he is responsible for the injury resulting
from his neglect of duty. He is NOT an
swerable for injury 70 adults, nor for The
injuries 70 young persons who have mad
that experience from which know ea3c
of danger may be reasonably presumed
and that discretion which promps e
In the case in which this rule was
stated a boy Il years old was injured
while attempting 10 clean, not real
but wooden" one. 1t was n dangerous
piece of machinery even TO an adult
prove that he had received any instsue-
tons from the foreman. or that he had
by experience or in any other way Gain-
ed knowledge OF the machine and OF
that this was proper case for the jury
to decide whether the boy had received
needful instruction.
An Operator In an Iron MIL.
In another Pennsylvania case a south
about II years old and recently employed
In an iron mill was hired for one duty.
but Injured while doing. by direction OF
the foreman. another. The court of re-
view remarked that in the case OF young
ptiSQUS II WAS the uQtl oI the ttDI4tNNt
to take notice of their age and ability
and to use ordinary care to protect them
from risks which they could not properly
appreciate and to which they should not
be exposed THE duty in such cases
Of me ignorance san or inexperience q the
employee and II does not extend to those
who are of mature years and who are RI
miar with the employment and Its
risks" In the case to which these re-
marks were applied the boy had had but
very little acquaintance with his work:
He went into the mill on Tuesday and
was injured on the fourth day after
ward. lie was injured while closing
gate between two pairs or rollers. The
moved were covered along the whole
length OF the train except at the point
over which he had to reach 10 open and
close the gate. IL they had been COW
cred there the accident would not have
happened In view OF the youth and
want of experience in the business on his
The Jury whether his employer had snff-
GENTLY warned and instructed him about
the dangers OF the. employment and how
to avoid them, or had done all that was
reasonably necessary to protect him from
injury
A Ttn-stampsnw Machine.
One more application of this rule may
be mentioned. boy IA years old who
was not familiar with machinery was put
at work by his employer at tin-stamping
ftdtiiltlt. ttt ~ u fSNu b"ttNHt 49,
the piece OF tin In it's place ON the machine
with his right hand and then pressed his
foot on a lever which brought down 4
heavy hammer on the tin. The foreman,
when setting the boy AZ work. STAMPED
a few pieces OF tin to show him how 70
do the work. ON the second day while
the boy was stamping piece OF TIN y
slipped out OF its place. lie leaned over
TO put Ii in place. and as he did SO. his
bench being shaky, he pressed his foot
on the lever, which started the hammer.
and IL came down on hia fingers and crush
ed them He sued hts employer. but failed
10 recover anything. the court OF revicw
remarking that there was no danger III
this particular machine that was not az
obvious to boy OF IL as TO an adult,
lie could that II he placed his hand
under the stamp II would be crushed. IL
boys are not allowed TO use machinery mn
I'll they have become accustomed "a ia
use II would be difficult for them to learn
any useful trade or occupation by which
to earn livelihood"
An Instructive case has been decided In
Ohio. a boy was injured while In the
employ of the Cleveland Rolling MIL Com
pany. His duty was TO turn on and On
steam at steam engine. To do this he
had to stand near a shaft which reyolved
when the engine was In motion. Al the
time of the accident short belt was
hanging loose on the shaft. which caused
the injury. The court remarked that thfe
dfierent rules had been applied 70 such
cases. One was that children were bonnd
TO exercise the same degree OF care ~
adults; another, wholly freed small chill
dren from negigenee; another that a
child il held 10 no greater care than ~
usually possessed by children of the same
age" For one. we fail 10 see anything
very luminous In this rule, even though
II Ii supported by the great weight ng
authority what degree Of care. II any.
must child exercise, and what inEtruc-
ton, II any. must be given to him befare
he begins his work. These are the
questions that require answer, and the
rule above mentioned does not throw msca
light on them. The court, however. In re.
viewing tho case put forth, as we think,
far more wisdom than is contained IN the
rule Itself III may be safely laid down
as general rule" says the court that
persons who employ children TO work with
or about dangerous machinery or IN dan
geroua places should anticipate that they
viii exercise only such Judgment, dlacFH-
ton and care AZ n usual among Children
Of he same age and under similar siYs
cuuxtances. and are bound 90 use due
care, having regard 10 their age and In
experience 70 protect them from the dan
gers Incident 10 the situation tn wbie d
they are placed. and AZ reasonable pre-
caution ~ the exercise ~ such care In
that behalf IL IL tbs duty ~ the employer
Ia 40 instruct such employees CONCERNING
the dangers connected with their employ
fnpnt which from their youth and insxpcrt-
ance they may not appreciate or c0mptor
bend that they mas. ~ the exercise ~
such care as ought reasonably "a be ok
pecfed 81 them, guard against and avoif
injuries arising fherefrefn" 4 rational
rule truly that may be- properly applied
10 the cases We have described.