Darsam v. Kohlmann

Citations

• 123 La. 164
• 48 So. 781
• 1909 La. LEXIS 689

Syllabus

<p>1. Master and Servant (§ 228*) — Injuries to Servant — Violation oe Statute by Master — Contributory Negligence.</p> <p>Whilst the violation by the master of the provisions of a statute regulating the employment of his servants is negligence per se, and actionable, if injuries are sustained by the servants in consequence thereof, such provisions are not to be so construed as to abrogate the ordinary rules relating to contributory negligence, which is available as a defense, notwithstanding the statute, unless the latter is so worded as to leave no doubt that such defense is to be excluded.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. § 671; Dec. Dig. § 228.*]</p> <p>2. Master and Servant (§ 204*) — Injuries to Servant — Employment oe Children— Violation oe Statute by Master — Contributory Negligence.</p> <p>Where the foreman of a factory employs a boy, in his twelfth year, and assigns him to work in a perfectly safe position, instructing him to stay there, and not to go near or meddle with any of the machinery, the owner of the factory will not be liable in damages, notwithstanding that the employment of boys of that age in factories is prohibited under penalty of fine and imprisonment, for injuries received by the boy whilst unnecessarily, and in violation of his instructions, subjecting himself to an obvious risk, the danger of which he was capable of appreciating. And, a fortiori, is this true where the boy was employed in the belief, superinduced by his own representations and his appearance, and by the acquiescence of his family, that he was over the age prescribed by the statute.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Master and Servant, Dec. Dig. § 204.*]</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>