Sinclair v. Berndt

Citations

• 87 Ill. 174

Syllabus

<p>1. Contributory negliqence—carelessness of servant injured. Where a, boy employed to do work generally about a planing mill, such as a boy of his age and strength was capable of doing, while engaged in a business not dangerous, with proper care, left his post and went to the place of another lad, in front of a saw, and put a board to the machine, and, while hurrying to get back to bis own place, thoughtlessly put his hand on the saw, whereby he lost his fingers, it was held, that no recovery could be had by the boy’s father, in a suit against the employer, for the injury, owing to the boy’s negligence, and that the boy himself, if suing, could not recover.</p> <p>2. Instruction—ignoring important fact on other side. In an action by a father, against the proprietor of a planing mill, to recover damages for a personal injury sustained by his son while in the defendant’s employment, an instruction that, if changing the boy’s work was the cause of the accident and injury, the defendant was liable, where the whole evidence showed the injury was the result of the boy’s own carelessness, was held erroneous, as ignoring the negligence of the boy.</p>