Court Opinion

ID: 9831107
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:49:17.774295+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:31.143859
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Counsel for appellee, in support of their contention that the burden was on the employer to show that the deceased was warned of the dangers of the employment, have cited Lawson v. Hamilton Compress Co., 162 S. W. 1023, Railway Co. v. Worden, 90 Ark. 407, 119 S. W. 830, and Labatt on Master and Servant, vol. 1, § 291. In these cases injuries to minors were under consideration; and it was the purpose of these authorities to say that, where minority is pleaded and relied on to avoid the assumption .of risk, the burden is on the employer to show that, notwithstanding his minority and lack of matured judgment he was warned of the danger. In short, if the minor did not have sufficient judgment to comprehend the danger, this would be overcome by the master showing that he was in fact told of the danger. But even if that rule were as broad as indicated in the Lawson Case, supra, it would have no application to this case because deceased was not a minor.
The motion for rehearing will be overruled.