Stehle v. Jaeger Automatic Machine Co.

Citations

• 225 Pa. 348
• 74 A. 215
• 1909 Pa. LEXIS 662

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Master and servant — Proximate and remote cause — Industrial establishments — Act of May 2, 1905, P. L. 352.</p> <p>1. It is never a question for a jury whether one violating a positive statute exercised reasonable care and caution in so doing.</p> <p>2. Where a boy under the age of fourteen years employed in an industrial establishment in violation of the Act of May 2,1905, P. L. 352, is injured while cleaning a pipe, both he and his father may recover damages for his injuries, although the cleaning of the pipe was no part of the boy’s duty, and he had been specially warned not to attempt it. In such a case the proximate cause of the injuries was the employment of the boy in violation of the act.</p> <p>3. It is because a child under fourteen years of age is likely to be imprudent and negligent, and is therefore exposed to greater dangers to himself and others as well, that his employment in industrial establishments is forbidden. So it is never a question of risk of employment or of contributory negligence.</p> <p>4. Where the circumstance or event which concurs with the negligent act in causing the injury might reasonably have been foreseen as likely to occur under the circumstances, the person guilty of such negligent act is liable for the resulting injury.</p> <p>5. Where a boy under fourteen years of age employed in an industrial establishment in violation of the act of May 2,1905, is injured, the father as well as the boy may recover damages for the injuries, and it is immaterial that the father had knowledge of the statute, or that a factory inspector had advised the defendant that as the boy had been employed prior to the passage of the act he was not within its terms.</p> <p>Constitutional law — Title of act — Employment of infants — Act of May 2, 1905, P. L. 352.</p> <p>6. Sec. 2 of the Act of May 2,1905, P. L. 352, regulating the employment of children in industrial establishments is not unconstitutional, notice of the provisions of the s