Case Name: John Fitzgerald, by Elizabeth Fitzgerald, His Guardian ad Litem, Respondent, v. The Elsas Paper Co., Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1900-02
Citations: 30 Misc. 438
Docket Number: 
Parties: John Fitzgerald, by Elizabeth Fitzgerald, His Guardian ad Litem, Respondent, v. The Elsas Paper Co., Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 30
Pages: 438–439

Head Matter:
John Fitzgerald, by Elizabeth Fitzgerald, His Guardian ad Litem, Respondent, v. The Elsas Paper Co., Appellant.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
February, 1900.)
Negligence — Waiver by infant. sui juris of the protection of the Factory Act.
Assuming that a cogwheel of a cylinder press was not guarded in the manner required by the Factory Act, a boy, aged sixteen years, who has worked at the press sufficiently long to be charged with its obvious perils, can recover no damages from his employer for injuries caused to his leg by the cogwheel catching it as he slipped from a platform while feeding the press, as his continuance in his employment amounts to a waiver of the protection of the said act.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, rendered in the Municipal Court, first district, borough of Manhattan.
Nadal, Smyth, Carrere & Trafford, for appellant.
Ho appearance for respondent.

Opinion:
MacLean, J.
The plaintiff, about sixteen years of age, brought this action by his guardian to recover damages for personal injuries received in the employment of the defendant. He testified that, while feeding a cylinder press, he slipped from a box or platform upon which he was standing, and that a cogwheel caught the knee of his trousers and tore his leg. Whether that wheel was or was not guarded, according to the requirements of the Factory Act, does not appear. Assuming, however, that it was not, it does appear that the plaintiff was of discretionary age and had worked at that press sufficiently long to be charged with obvious perils, and so could, and must, be held to have waived the protection of the act by accepting the employment and working and continuing to work upon such a machine. Kingsley v. Pratt, 148 H. T. 372. The judgment must, therefore, be reversed.
Fkeedman, P. J., and Leventeitt, J., concur.
Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant, to abide the event.