Brand v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad

Citations

• 64 Fla. 184

Syllabus

<p>1. Where, in an action for a negligent personal injury, the declaration in effect alleges that the plaintiff, an employee, was. about fourteen years of age; that he was without knowledge or experience in the dangerous work assigned to him by defendants; and that because of his youth and inexperience, he did not know or appreciate the risks and dangers of the employment, such allegations are essential elements-, in the cause, and a plea averring that the plaintiff was not-free from fault, with other averments in support that do not make an issue as to the capacity of the plaintiff to appreciate the risks and dangers of the employment, is not good against a specific ground of a demurrer that “the said plea fails to-charge or allege that the plaintiff was of sufficient age or understanding to appreciate any warning or danger communicated to him by language or appearance.”</p> <p>2. While a sufficient warning of an employee as to the dangers of an employment is a duty imposed by law upon an employer, such warning does not relieve the employer of liability for an injury caused by the youth and inexperience of an employee put at a dangerous work by the employer.</p> <p>3. Whether a youth of about 14 years of age has capacity to appreciate,the risks and dangers of the employment stated in the declaration so as to render him subject to the rule that contributory negligence bars a recovery, depends upon the age, the mental and physical attainments, the experience and other conditions affecting the conduct of the youth, as well as the character of the work and the circumstances of the injury.</p> <p>4. Where error in sustaining a plea apparently influenced the finding and sustaining of a verdict that is not supported by the evidence and the law applicable thereto, a new trial should be granted.</p>