Hauser ex rel. Hauser v. Forsyth Furniture Co.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Civil actioN, tried before Adams, J., and a jury, at September Term, 1916, of EoRsytii. Tbe action was to recover damages for physical injuries suffered by plaintiff, a minor, when in the company’s factory as an employee, contrary to the provisions of the statute (Pell’s Revisal, sec. 1981b), and attributed also to positive negligence on the part of defendant.
Read the full summary
Civil actioN, tried before Adams, J., and a jury, at September Term, 1916, of EoRsytii. Tbe action was to recover damages for physical injuries suffered by plaintiff, a minor, when in the company’s factory as an employee, contrary to the provisions of the statute (Pell’s Revisal, sec. 1981b), and attributed also to positive negligence on the part of defendant. On denial of liability and plea of contributory negligence, the jury rendered the following verdict: 1. Was the plaintiff, at the time of his alleged injury, under 13 years of age, as alleged in the complaint ? Answer: Yes. 2. Was the…
1ConcurrenceClark, C. J.
Laws 1907, chap. 463; Pell’s Revisal, 1981b, raised the age within which a child cannot be employed in a factory by providing that between the age of 12 and 13 no child can be employed in a factory, except when an apprentice, “and only then after having attended school four months in the preceding twelve months.” In this case it was admitted that the child injured wás not serving in' the capacity of an apprentice, and the verdict determines that he was under the age of 13, and that he was injured by the negligence of the defendant. Upon this verdict and admission, I think that judgment should…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State v. HallSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1903