New-York tribune., 1903-03-19
LIABILITY FOR CHILD WORKERS.

The decision IN the case Of Vito Marino
against Louis A. Lehmaier recently handed
down by the Court OF Appeals, estab blishes
new rule concerning liability for injury Of child
laborers which 10 Of great interest and impor-
tance at this time, when efforts are being made
to prevent the employment Of young children.
This decision will do more than many truant
officers to stop owners Of factories from en-
ploying children under the legal age.
Vito Marino, who was thirteen years and
three months old, was, in spite Of the statute
prohibiting the employment of a child under
fourteen years Of age in a factory, put at work
on printing press as feeder. While cleaning
the press at night his fingers were caught in
the cogwheels and cut of. The press was not
running a. the time. and the boy himself prob
ably started it by mistake. He was unable to
state whether or not he had done this The
employer charged the boy with contributory
negligence, or with having assumed the risks OF
the employment, so that he could recover only
by showing that the machinery was faulty or
that he was injured through some act Of the
employer.
The court brushes this plea aside. Judge
Haight, writing the majority opinion, in which
Chief Judge Parker and Judges Martin, Vann
and Cullen concur, holds that the prohibition
Of the statute against the employment of chill
dre1 under fourteen is absolute, and is a police
regulation intended to guard children from in
juries liable to result from their working about
machinery. Before the passage Of the act the
law was well settled that an employer was
bound in putting person Of immature years
at work upon machinery to instruct him in the
dangers Of the work He must, moreover, see
that the instructions were understood and If
the child was incapable Of understanding and
a~ff1 4uaT hA TO-
"for such employment and the employer puts
''or keeps him at such work at his own risk"
Therefore, even before the adoption Of the LABOR
law, the responsibility Of an infant for his own
injury was a question Of fact for jury and
the court says:
The statute, in effect, declares that child
under the age specified presumably does not
possess the judgment. discretion, care and eau
dangerous svocation, and is, therefore, not, as
matter OF law, chargeable with contributory
negligence. or with having assumed the risks Of
the employment In such occupation.
The court discusses the claim that the viola
ton Of the statute does not subject the proprte-
tor to civil damages to employees, and comedies
that many similar regulations with criminal
penalties attached do not involve civil damages
to aggrieved persons. But 1t says that its at
tent1on has been called to 10 statute prohibit
ing the doing Of an act which is dangerous to
the life and health Of others IN which It has
been held that the jury may not hnd negligence
and liability for damages resulting from the
doing Of the prohibited &ct
Judges O'Brien and Gray dissent from this
view. The latter admits that there might be
recovery II 1t could be shown that the en-
ployer's Illegal act was the direct cause Of the
injury. But In the case under discussion the
direct cause Of injury was unexplained, and
the employer could not be held liable unless
the mere violation Of the statute made him
liable for remote and indirect results. Chief
Judge Parker in hts concurring memorandum
comedies that the defendant Is not liable as
matter Of law for alI injuries resulting from