The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-06-14
No. 1854.
Kate Caspar, Appellee,

No. 1o,0U4.
Kate Caspar, Appellee.
William william, levin ct al, Appellants.
Appeal from Wyandotte County.
AFFIRMED
Syllabus. By the Court Burch, j.
!: Under section Of the factory act
lch. $50, Laws 1909 besides certain named
establishments, any other establishment
is a manufacturing establishment wherein
or materials of any kind, in a raw or
unfinished or incomplete state or condi-
Iion; are converted into new or I'M
proved or different form.
An establishment wherein railroad
IRON, old stoves, old waste iron and scrap
lengths known as grade No. /, grade No.
and busheling scrap. by means of ma
o cnlnes 81 known as alligator shears and
fications of mills which purchase the
product, is manufacturing establish
act.
3. None of the sections of the factory
other state and consequently had not been
given settled and definite meaning by
the highest court of any other state
when the statute was enacted.
4. Section of the factory act re-
lating to safeguards for machinery and
appliances is not limited in its applica-
nary duties only. 1t is designed to pro-
tect persons employed or laboring in man
ufacturing establishments while in the
performance of any duty. whether or
binary and general or exceptional and oc-
caS1Onal.
5. The factory act ignores the COM
mon law duty resting on the factory own
er or operator to exercise reasonable
care to prevent foreseeabie INJURIES and
dence by making specific precautionary
requirements relating to specified places.
ton founded on the act for damages con-
sequent upon injuries to an employee
by the absence of a prescribe safeguard.
1t is defense that the injury could
not, with reasonable prudence, have been
s. The protection of the factory act
extends only to persons acting within the
scope of some employment or labor But
requirements of the act, as that belt shift
ers shall be provided, by means of rules
piiances. as that belts. shall be shifted
only while machinery is not In motion
=. The civil action for damages au-
mon law action but is a statutory rem
edy for, the enforcement of a positive
duty enjoined by law in the interest of
the public welfare and the contributory
negligence of the injured employee or
laborer is not a defense to such an ac-
ton.
The first paragraph Of the syllabus OF
Madison VS.. Clippinger, "A Kan 7oo Is
8. The factory act falls within the L.
gitimate scope of the police power OF the
state and the remedy prescribed for its
the state or the federal constitution.
ficient in order to establish liability, for
the plaintiff to prove, in the first in
stance that death or injury resulted in
consequence of failure to provide the re-
ouired safeguards, or that failure to
provide such safeguards directly con-
tributed to such death or injury, ana IL
is not necessary for the plaintiff TO go
further. in those cases where the sub
ject is pertinent and prove the practi-
cabi1ity of such safeguards.
The third paragraph of the syllabus OF
Henschell VS.. Railway Co., Is kan. Sll.
is oerruled.
All the Justices concurring.
Porter, j.. concurring specially.
Attest: D. A. VALENTINE,
TSeal.1 Clerk Supreme Court