Fort Smith Rim & Bow Co. v. Qualls
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, Fort Smith District; John Brissolara, Judge; 1. Under initiative act No. 1, Acts 1915, p. 1505, there was no liability, as the boy was not under sixteen years of age. 1 A. & E. Enc. Law, p. 927. The evidence does not warrant a finding that plaintiff was employed to work at adjusting any belt to any machine.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, Fort Smith District; John Brissolara, Judge; 1. Under initiative act No. 1, Acts 1915, p. 1505, there was no liability, as the boy was not under sixteen years of age. 1 A. & E. Enc. Law, p. 927. The evidence does not warrant a finding that plaintiff was employed to work at adjusting any belt to any machine. As to meaning of the word “employ,” see 90 Pac. 259; 210 Mass. 387. All the authorities on the subject indicate that defendant did not employ the plaintiff to adjust a belt and did not violate the law. If an employee of defendant, without authority,…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
Samuel Qualls, sued by his father as next friend, to recover damages for an injury sustained by him while in the employment of appellant company. The first application made by the father for employment was refused on account of his age. Thereafter the boy secured a permit from the Department of Labor, authorizing appellant to employ the boy. The boy was placed at work at what is known as off-bearing from a circular rip-saw, and according to appellant the boy had no duties except to carry away pieces of timber after they had come through the saw, and it was denied that the boy had anything…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Cox Cash Stores, Inc. v. AllenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1925
- Blankenship v. W. E. Cox & SonsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1942