Case Name: SALLIE PETTIT, Administrator, v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1911-10-04
Citations: 156 N.C. 119
Docket Number: 
Parties: SALLIE PETTIT, Administrator, v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY.
Judges: Hoee, J., concurs in dissenting opinion of Clabk, C. J.
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 156
Pages: 119–140

Head Matter:
SALLIE PETTIT, Administrator, v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY.
(Filed 4 October, 1911.)
1. Employment of Children — To What Confined — Interpretation of Statutes.
The provisions of Revisal, sec. 1981a, “that . . no child under twelve years of age shall be employed in any factory or manufacturing establishment in this State,” are not interpreted so as to extend the employment of such 'child to include employments not within- its letter or spirit.
2. Railroads — Master and Servant — Messenger Boys — Employment of Children — Dangerous Employment — Negligence—Causal Connection — Evidence.
The plaintiff’s intestate was a boy under twelve years of age, employed by the defendant railroad company as a messenger boy, with the duties of carrying dispatches and messages from and between its certain officers, necessitating his going over defendant’s yard where there were numerous tracks whereon the trains continuously were passing, in the course of his employment : Held, evidence only that the intestate was last seen before the injury riding on the corner of defendant’s box car, and that he was found thereafter lying on defendant’s track in the injured condition which within a few hours caused his death, is insufficient to take the case to the jury upon the question of defendant’s negligence, and a motion to nonsuit was properly sustained.
3. Railroads — Master and Servant — Employment of Children — Dangerous Duties — Instructions to Servant — Scope of Employment —Evidence.
In an action to recover damages of defendant for its negligent killing of plaintiff’s intestate, a boy under twelve years of age, employed to carry dispatches or messages across defendant’s numerous tracks, where trains were continuously passing and repassing, the question as to whether the defendant had instructed the «intestate as to the dangerous character of his employment becomes immaterial when there is no evidence tending to show that the intestate was engaged in his duties to the defendant under the scope of his employment at the time in question or that the injury occurred by reason thereof, the burden of showing which was upon the plaintiff.
Appeal from Whedbee, J., at June Special Term, 1911, of EDGECOMBE.
This is an action brought by the administratrix of Joe Pettit, to recover damages.
The complaint alleges the death of the intestate, his employment by the defendant as a messenger boy, the nature of his duties, a description of the place where he had to work, and then alleges specifically the acts of negligence complained of as follows:
“On 28 April, 1907, the said infant was given a message by the defendant, and carelessly and negligently directed by the defendant to deliver the same to another one of its employees, and to do so required the infant to go somewhere on the yard to track No. 9 or 10. About this time an engine with a number of cars of defendant, going south, passed,- when the said infant undertook to go upon said slowly moving train to the point where the message was to be delivered. He stood upon the iron steps of a flat car in the said train, and suddenly the said car upon which he was standing, failing to clear another car standing on a track of the defendant, said infant was knocked from his position by coming in contact with the said car on the adjoining track; he was thrown between the wheels of the moving train and was so badly injured that he died the same afternoon.”
The following evidence was introduced by the plaintiff:
Mrs. J. W. Spiers, formerly Mrs. Sallie Pettit, testified as follows:
Q. Tour name is Mrs. J. W. Spiers? A. Yes.
Q. You are the mother of the young man, Joe Pettit, that was killed at South Rocky Mount? A. Yes.
Q. When were you married the last time? A. Last December, three years ago.
Q. At the time of your son’s death you were Sallie Pettit? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You have a record of the date of the birth of your son Joe? A. Yes, sir.
Q. "Will you please open tbis Bible and turn to the page in question; is this a memorandum as to the date of the birth of your son Joe? A. Yes.
Q. And that record is that he was born on the 22d of June, 1895 or 1896? A. I can’t tell.
Q. Do you remember the date? A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know who made this record? A. Yes.
Q. Who? A. Next to my oldest daughter. For about four years it was my brother’s Bible, and I had her draw mine off from his. He had the old record of all his children and mine.
Q. The date was recorded in your brother’s Bible? A. Yes.
Q. And these dates were recorded at the time of the birth of the children? A. Yes.
Q. Do you know of your own knowledge how old he was? A. Yes; he was eleven years old; would have been twelve in June, 1907.
Q. Did you ever give your consent that this'boy should go to that company to engage in this work? A. No.
Q. How was the boy dressed with reference to long or short pants? A. Short, knee pants.
Q. What number of clothes did he wear, with' reference to pants? A. No. 12; No. 11 all the time before.
Q. Was he large or small for his age? A. He was not large at all; just ordinary size.
Q. About what time in the day was he killed? A. Somewhere about 12; I was sitting at the dinner table.
Q. How long after that before your child died? A. I think it was somewhere about 4 that same afternoon.
Cross-examination:
Q. When was the first time, Mrs. Spiers, that you heard that your boy was working for the railroad? A. When he got his job he told me.
Q. How long before this accident did he tell you he had a job? A. He told me as soon as he got his job.
Q. See if you can’t remember how long before his accident? A. At the last time he had been at work for a week.
Q. How long the first time? A. About two months.
Q. It is alleged that he had been in the employment about four days? A. "Well, somewhere about a week; the last time I think it was on a Tuesday he began, and was killed Sunday.
Q. But.before he had been working about two months? A. Somewhere about that time.
Q. When he went there the second time did you tell him not to take it? A. No, sir; I don’t think I did, but he said, “I am going back and take my same job, and — ”
Q. Did you say not to do it? A. I don’t remember what I said to him.
Q. The first time, did you tell him not to take it? A. I don’t know, sir.
Redirect examination:
Q. Did you know just what duties he had? A. He told me he was a messenger boy; but I didn’t know anything about it.
Q. Did you know anything about the danger attached to the job? A. No, sir. I had never been on the yard and I didn’t know anything about it.
Q. Did you know how many tracks or trains there were there? A. No.
Q. Mrs. Pettit, how many other children have you? I have seven besides him.
Recross-examination:
Q. He told you he took messages from one office to the other? A. Yes.
Q. Brought his money home? A. Yes, to me.
Mr. J. W. Spiers testified as follows:
Q. Mr. Spiers, you are the husband of the lady who left the stand? A. Yes.
Q. Mr. Spiers, you have been in the employment, off and on, of the railroad at Rocky Mount? A. Yes.
Q. You knew the condition of the yard at South Rocky Mount in April, 1907? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you happen to know what duties Joe Pettit was discharging at the time of his employment? A. Messenger boy.
Q. In the office of Mr. E. S. Dodge? A. Yes, chief train dispatcher.
Q. And where were most of tbe messages to be carried? A. To tbe yardmaster’s office ; bis office was placed diagonally across from tbe dispatcher’s at that time.
Q. And over bow many tracks did be have to go? A. At that time be bad to cross somewhere between eight or ten tracks; I don’t exactly know at that time.
Q. Tbe yard has been torn up and removed and these tracks have been torn up? A. Yes.
Q. Over these ten or twelve tracks between Dodge’s office and tbe other office' bow many trains moved and bow often ? A. I can’t tell; there was continuous shifting all tbe time. All tbe yard engines from tbe roundhouse bad to be delivered there.
Q. "When tbe trains come in were not all trains bandied over these tracks? A. Norfolk and Charleston passenger trains were.
Q. What about tbe making up of these trains? A. Well, they were made up in tbe south yard and were left down in south yard; they bad to go over these tracks; all trains leading north.
Q. What became of tbe cars going north? A. They passed through the same tracks; they were made up in tbe northern end of tbe yard and passed over tbe main-line track.
Q. To what extent were these tracks being used? A. For classifying freight, loading and shipping freight, etc.
Q. How often? A. Continuously.
Q. What did you say Joe’s duties were? A. Messenger boy.
Q. Took messages from the dispatcher’s office to the yardmaster? A. Yes.
Mr. J. E. Pettit testified as follows:
Q. Look at that; do you remember that? A. Yes. »
Q. Speaking with reference to that, that is what year? A. 1907.
Q. A wire that your brother has been hurt? A. Yes.
Q. You were living here at that time? A. No, sir; I was living at Eocky Mount, but I was over here that day.
Q. Did you know what your brother’s duties were ? A. Messenger boy to carry messages to any office he was sent.
Q. Court: Were there any other duties? A. He was supposed to deliver messages to Mr. Robinson, Mr. Trueblood, and other offices on the yard.
Q. Just locate where these offices were and how many trains and tracks there were? A. Mr. Gorham’s office was in the end of the principal shed and there were twelve tracks, I think, or more there at that time, and he had to cross these tracks to his office. Mr. Trueblood’s office was across these tracks over between Mr. Gorham’s office and the shop.
Q. What about the tracks there? A. He had to cross these same tracks. There was continued shifting and making up trains all the time during the day.
Q. What about Mr. Robinson’s office? A. Robinson’s office was back of the shop.
Q. How many tracks would he have to cross going to Robinson’s office from the dispatcher’s office? A. About fifteen or sixteen; it was behind the shop.
Q. Where was the office of the chief train dispatcher, Mr. Dodge, with reference to the main tracks of the A. O. L. ? A. It was above the Coast Line restaurant.
Q. How far away from the main-line tracks? A. I don’t really know exactly.
Q. As far as what? A. It was the distance of this building, or may have been more.
Q. About fifty feet? A. I suppose it was fifty feet or more.
Q. These tracks were in front of Dodge’s office? A. Yes.
Q. How many of these tracks were there? A. There were only two main-line tracks and other tracks leading to them.
Q. How many of these? A. A good many of them; I don’t remember how many.
Q. How many trains and shifting engines and engines and cars passed over these tracks? A. There was continuous shifting by trains for different points, Richmond, Florence, and Norfolk, over these tracks.
Q. Mr. Pettit, do you happen to know what your brother was receiving? A. $12.50 per month.
Cross-examination:
Q. Mr. Pettit, you have spoken of Ms duties and tbe messages to take to tbe offices; bow would be proceed to carry it there? A. Well, I suppose be would walk.
Q. Don’t you know it was bis business to walk from tbe point ? A. Yes, I suppose that was tbe point of it.
Q. That was bis business? A. Yes; that was part of it.
Q. Now, was there anything in bis duty that required him to undertake to go upon a slowly moving train to tbe point where tbe message was to be delivered and ride upon iron steps of a freight car? A. I don’t know.
Q. So when be attempted to ride a slowly moving train be did that because be wanted to? A. He did as all tbe others did.
. Q. Didn’t be do that because be wanted to ? Yes, sir; and not only him, but all tbe others that age; there were more than him.
Eedirect examination:
Q. There were other young children employed around the-shop? A. Yes.
Q. Tbe dispatches this boy bad to deliver were telegrams?. A. Yes.
Eecross-examination:
Q. There were orders as well as telegrams? A. Any messages be might be given from tbe dispatcher’s office.
Q. He would take any message? A. Yes.
Mr. Batts testified as follows:
Q. What is your name? A. J. W. Batts.
Q. Where do you reside? A. South Eocky Mount.
Q. What is your employment? A. Train engineer. I was fireman at tbe time of this accident.
Q. Fireman in April, 1907? A. Yes.
Q. In whose service? A. Atlantic Coast Line.
Q. Where were you on tbe day that Joe Pettit was killed? A. I was on tbe yard; bad been out at work and just started home.
Q. At what time? A. Between 11 and 12.
Q. Did. you see Joe Pettit that day? A. Once; I saw him on the corner of the car.
Q. State what position he occupied on the car? A. He was standing on the steps and holding- to the lower round.
Q. What kind of a car? A. Bos car.
Q. In motion? A. Yes, moving.
Q. In what direction was it moving and where was the engine ? A. At the southern end, the car was moving north.
Q. Did you see Pettit again this day? A. Yes, after he was run over.
Q. What attracted your attention? A. I heard some one scream out.
Q. Where did you find Pettit? A. He was lying on the track.
Q. What was his condition? A. One leg off.
Q. Do you know to what extent the tracks are used for the making up of trains and the classification of cars of the Coast Line? A. Yes.
Q. What was it; go ahead and state to the jury for what purpose they were used? A. They were put there for incoming trains and for making up trains going out.
Q. How frequently are engines and trains passing back and forth through the yard? i A. Most all the time.
Mr. K. S. Lancaster testified as follows:
Q. Mr. Lancaster, do you know the condition of the yard of South Rocky Mount in April, 1907? A. I think so.
Q. Go ahead and tell the jury; describe it? A. Well, there was trains continually over the tracks; it was going and coming all the time; hardly ever more than two or three minutes without trains going backwards and forwards; about fifteen tracks there at that time.
Q. You were in the employment of the.Coast Line at that time? A. Yes.
Q. Your duties called you upon the yard? A. Yes.
The plaintiff rested. The defendant moved for judgment of nonsuit; motion allowed, and plaintiff excepted.
The court signed the judgment of nonsuit as set out in the record, to which plaintiff excepted and in open court appealed to the Supreme Court.
The plaintiff contends that the employment of the intestate, a child between eleven and twelve years of age, was so dangerous that it alone was evidence of negligence, and that he was killed in the performance of his duty.
The defendant contends: (1) That there is no evidence of negligence. (2) That if the employment of the intestate is evidence of negligence, there is no evidence that the intestate was on duty when killed, and therefore the negligence of the defendant was not the real cause of death.
H. A. Gilliam and Aycoclc & Winston for plaintiff.
F. S. Spruill for defendant.

Opinion:
AixeN, J.,
after stating the case: The question presented by the record has, within a few years, been considered by this Court in six cases: Ward v. Odell, 126 N. C., 948; Fitzgerald v. Furniture Co., 131 N. C., 645; Hendrix v. Cotton Mills, 138 N. C., 170; Rolin v. Tobacco Co., 141 N. C., 310; Leathers v. Tobacco Co., 144 N. C., 342, and Starnes v. Manufacturing Co., 147 N. C., 563.
The last three were against manufacturing establishments, and were based on the statute (ch. 473, Laws 1903, now Eev., see. 1981a), which provides: "That from and after 1 January, 1908, no child under twelve years of age shall be em-. ployed in any factory or manufacturing establishment in this State"; and we deduce therefrom the following principles:
(1) That the statute is constitutional.
(2) That it applies to employment in factories and manufacturing establishments, and to no other.
(3) That the employment of a child under twelve years of age in a factory or manufacturing establishment is negligence per se.
(4) That such negligence is proximate, if the child is injured as the result of his employment.
(5) That there is no assumption of risk by the child.
(6) That the negligence of the parent, if any, in permitting the employment, cannot be imputed to the child.
(7) That in addition to the usual presumption against contributory negligence, there is a presumption that the child has not the capacity to appreciate the dangers of his employment.
(8) That this presumption may be rebutted.
These decisions are not, however, authoritative in this case, because the employment of the intestate is not within the statute, and is not forbidden by it, and we are not at liberty to extend the statute to include employments not within its letter or spirit.
In the Hendrix case, the boy was employed to work at the complicated machinery of a cotton mill, but as he was twelve years of age, the case was decided on the principles of common law, and not on the statute, and it was held that there was a failure of proof as to negligence and proximate cause.
In the Odell and Fitzgerald cases there was evidence of the negligence of the employer, outside of the dangerous character of the employment, in that in each there was evidence of a failure to instruct the child, and in both the question discussed was the correctness of instructions on contributory negligence.
The. opinion in the Fitzgerald case was written by Qhief Justice Clark. He quotes with approval the following language from Thompson on Negligence: "The law puts upon a master, when he takes an infant into his service, the duty of explaining to him fully the hazards and dangers connected with the business, and of instructing him how to avoid them. Nor is this all; the master will not have discharged his duty in this regard unless the instructions and precautions given are so graduated to the youth, ignorance, and inexperience of the servant as to make him fully aware of the danger to him, and to place him, with reference to it, in substantially the same state as if he were an adult."
He also refers to the statutes from many of the States, and from Europe, giving the ages at which children may be worked in factories, and concludes: "With this consensus of opinion in nearly the entire civilized world, it might be that it would not have been error if the judge had held that it was negli gence per se to put a child of the tender age of nine years to work on a dangerous machine which he had never seen before, without any instructions or warning, and to leave him there by himself without stopping the machine. But, however that may be, it certainly was not error to leave the question of negligence to the jury with the charge given in connection therewith, which was very favorable to the defendant."
Accepting this as a correct statement of the law, we must abide by it, and can permit a recovery of damages for no reason except that a child has been injured. We may have pity and may be inclined to heed "the sob of the child in its helplessness," but we must accept the law, as we understand it, as our guide in determining the rights of litigants, bearing in mind the admonition of Judge Daniel: "The courts should not be wiser than the law."
The question is not presented in this record, and therefore it is not necessary to decide it; but we might go further than the Fitzgerald, case, and hold that when the employment is dangerous, it is not necessary to prove a failure upon the part of the employer to instruct, and still there would be no evidence of actionable negligence in this case, because there is nothing in the evidence to show that the intestate was on duty, or was performing a duty for the defendant. The evidence is vague and unsatisfactory. No witness swears on what day the intestate was killed, but we assume it was on a Sunday in April, 1907. No one swears he was killed by a train of the defendant, but we accept this as proven, although it would have been easy to show signs of blood on the rails or track, which was not done. The only statement as to how the intestate was injured is contained in the answer of the defendant, which was not in evidence: "That the said Joe Pettit at the time he received the injuries alleged in the complaint was rendering no service to the defendant, and was where he had no right to be. That said Pettit, of his own will and accord, and against the warning of his companions, attempted to get on a passing flat ear, missed his catch, fell, and the wheel of the car passed over and mashed his feet, without any fault of the defendant."
No witness says tbat tbe intestate was on duty tbe day be was killed, 01* tbat be was performing a duty for tbe defendant at tbe time of bis death.
These facts were not peculiarly within tbe knowledge of tbe defendant, as bis mother and stepfather knew whether or not be was on duty tbat day. Both knew be was employed by tbe defendant, and tbe mother received bis wages.
Tbe evidence, accepting it as true, shows tbat be was a messenger boy to carry messages, and tbat be bad to cross tbe tracks; but there is no suggestion tbat be bad to ride passing freight trains to perform these duties.
We repeat here tbe evidence of tbe witness Batts, who is tbe only witness who testifies to any fact connected with the killing:
Q. What is your name? A. J. W. Batts.
Q. Where do you reside? A. South Rocky Mount.
Q. What is your employment? A. Train- engineer. I was fireman at tbe time of this accident.
Q. Fireman in April, 1907? A. Yes.
Q. In whose service? A. Atlantic Coast Line.
Q. Where were you on tbe day tbat Joe Pettit was killed? A. I was on tbe yard; bad been out at work and just started home.
Q. At what time? A. Between 11 and 12.
Q. Did you see Joe Pettit tbat day? A. Once; I saw him on tbe corner of the car.
Q. State what position be occupied on tbe car? A. He was standing on tbe steps and bolding to tbe lower round.
Q. What kind of a car? A. Box car.
Q. In motion? A. Yes, moving.
Q. Did you see Pettit again this day? A. Yes, after be was run over.
Q. What attracted your attention? A. I beard some one scream out.
Q. Where did you find Pettit? A. He was lying on tbe track.
Q. What was bis condition? A. One leg off.
Q. Do you know to wbat extent tbe tracks a.re used for tbe making up of trains and tbe classification of cars of tbe Coast Line? A. Yes.
Q. Wbat wag it; go abead and state tO' tbe jury for wbat purpose they were used? A. They were put there for incoming trains and for making up trains going out.
Q. How frequently are engines and trains passing back and forth through tbe yard? A. Most all tbe time.
Tbe clear inference from this evidence is that tbe intestate, acting outside of tbe line of duty, jumped on a passing train, fell off, and was injured. I
If we confined tbe plaintiff strictly to tbe allegations of tbe complaint, tbe case would be stronger against her, as no one could urge that there is any evidence that tbe intestate was knocked off tbe car by coming in contact with a car on another track.
Tbe plaintiff was not inadvertent to tbe necessity of proving that tbe intestate was on duty, because be alleges that tbe intestate was in tbe discharge of bis duty, and was engaged in delivering a telegram, but be offered no evidence to sustain these allegations.
After a careful consideration of tbe case, we conclude that bis Honor committed no error in ordering a nonsuit.
No error.