The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-12-26
THE EMPLOYMENT OF MINORS.
Copyright 1s, by Seymour Ean)
SEYMOUR EATON

mine was in Texas. me supreme eout.
OF that state said 1t was universal
custom among the owners and companies
working mines TO employ boys from Y g
II years OF age. as trappers, ana tnat
experience had shown that they We're as
efficient In that sphere as Older persons,
at least that their employment was
practically satisfactory 90 all engaged
ir the business Of coal mining.
How Long should one BE Instructed:
How long can a child continue to claim
the right TO receive instruction!- IL Is
quite evident that a different rule ought
to govern in the case OF cnlid ~ years
OF age than in that of q big 2Vo-pound
child OF 90 Again, as we have seem an
employer has no right to employ young
persons at all in those cases In wnich
great judgment or discretion Il required
Z railway company would not be justified
III employing boy as an engineer, now
ever DESTROYS he might be OF serving.
If he did the company would be holden
10 the public for injuries 70 its work
men. Suppose the boy was ~. q mature
thoughtful person, would not the COM
pany be justified in thus employing nm nm,
he especially in exceptional cases wnere
no older or more competent persons coulu
be employed. TO serve y VIII therefore
be seen how difficult II Is to FIX a pre-
else age when the boy grows into a man.
when he can claim the benefit OF instrue-
ton and when not
Case in Georgia.
In a Georgia case It was said that this
a
experienced in dealing with machine
by which he was injured. The case snow
ed that the machine was dangerous 70 an
inexperienced person NOR uld the ase ~
the person 40 the court said. deprive
him Of the right 10 be warned, II the EN-
nIoyer, or the man representing NM
ought under all circumstances 70 nave m
auired of him as to his experience. or
taken notice of the probability that ne
was so inexperienced as to render II
proper to give him warming. That ms
age alone did not deprive him of the right
to be warned has been often decided.
where Minor Is Injured by an Adult.
There is another rule too important to
be omitted. Suppose child is injured py
the negligence Of another employe, an
adult. can he claim that the master must
reeomDense him for the injury thus re-
ceived through the negligence of another
We have learned what Is the general rule
with respect TO older employes--each as
snmes the risks q negligence c prac'I rel
cover II they are in the same common
service. Does this rule apply to chill
dren? Do they assume anythingF DO
they know or understand the risk they
run. In working In cotton factory or an
iron mile, of injury from the negligence
Of those around them? OF course they
do not know, nor do they knowingly
assume such risks. but the law regards
them or their parents as assuming those
risks and consequently they. cannot usu-
ally recover anything for injuries ~ a,ser sns-
When Does n Child Assume the
Risks Of His Employments
whether an infant Is TO be treated as
having assumed the risks OF personal IN
jury to himself from performance Of la
Dor attended with danger, and held 70
exercise OF ordinary care and caution In
order to recover damages from his en-
ployer in case of personal injury. Is al
ways an open question, depending upon
his capacity ana fitness for the particil-
Ia nf Ia ha QnnfONpd Mt
when so injured Therefore. the jury
in such a case should be instructed to
find verdict for the child unless his age,
Intelligence and experience We're such as
to induce a man OF ordinary care and
prudence TO believe him qualified and
fitted for the labor at which he employed
him Such Is the opinion of the court OF
apeals of kentucky on this subject.
Voluntary Employment.
A case has arisen In New York growing
out of statute that Is worth describing.
A law provided that mo child under the
age OF IS should be employed in any man
gearing and betting should have proper
safeguards" boy who was l3 years old
was employed in mandatory. While
doing his duty he was In safe place,
with no danger around him. But at the
request of another he pulled out a lever
attached to n machine in order to start
IT, and in doing so he placed his hand on
a wheel. which was drawn downward, and
he was injured He knew that the ma
chine was not guarded. He failed to re-
cover for his injury, the court remarking
that he knew that the machinery was
not guarded, and, furthermore. he had in
telligence enough to take care of himself
and TO understand the danger II he took
hold Of the lever. 1.-THE absence OF guards
can impose no libality upon the employer
when the boy knowing Of their absence,
voluntarily NEEDLES with the machine"
One might infer from the language that
the request 10 the boy TO move the lever
need not. have been given: that he was
perhaps indulging In little sport. The
truth. however was that the request 10
pull out the lever came from another en-
pioye who was engaged in cleaning the
machine. Nevertheless. IT was not part
OF hts duty 10 do this, and consequently
his employer could not be held liable for
the consequences. The boys act was
purely voluntary, 10 accommodate .an4
other emnloye and consequently there
was no help for the injured boy We
question whether he could have recovered
anything under the law even though his
employer or his foreman had requested
him to move the lever The risk WAS en-
tireiy his own however good his motives
I'm thus acting
ILL., L<T