Syneszewski v. Schmidt
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Wayne; Brooke, J. Case by Czeslau Syneszewski, by nest friend, against Carl E. Schmidt and Joseph Metzger, copartners as Carl E. Schmidt & Company, for personal injuries. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error. Act No. 113, Public Acts 1901, prohibits employment of any child under the age of 14 years in any manufacturing establishment. Violation of the act is a misdemeanor.
Read the full summary
Error to Wayne; Brooke, J. Case by Czeslau Syneszewski, by nest friend, against Carl E. Schmidt and Joseph Metzger, copartners as Carl E. Schmidt & Company, for personal injuries. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error. Act No. 113, Public Acts 1901, prohibits employment of any child under the age of 14 years in any manufacturing establishment. Violation of the act is a misdemeanor. The statute further provides that no child under the age -of 16 years shall be employed at employment whereby its life or limb is endangered. The statute gives no right of action to persons…
1Opinion of the CourtOstrander, J.
(after stating the facts). It is not open to question (Sipes v. Starch Co., 137 Mich. 258, Sterling v. Carbide Co., 142 Mich. 284, Beghold v. Auto Body Co., 149 Mich. 14) that this statute raises a duty to and for the benefit of persons of the classes liable to be injured by its violation. It is the general rule that a civil action is maintainable where the person complaining is of a class entitled to take advantage of the law, is a sufferer from the disobedience, is not himself a partaker in the wrong of which he complains, or is not otherwise precluded by the principles of the common law…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Marino v. . LehmaierNew York Court of Appeals · 1903
- McCutcheon v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court · 1873
- Leathers v. Blackwell Durham Tobacco Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1907
- American Car & Foundry Co. v. ArmentrautIllinois Supreme Court · 1905
- Nickey v. SteuderIndiana Supreme Court · 1905
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by39 opinions
- Zeni v. AndersonMichigan Supreme Court · 1976
- Bolden v. Grand Rapids Operating Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1927
- Stetz v. F. Mayer Boot & Shoe Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1916
- Gleason v. LoweMichigan Supreme Court · 1925
- Warwick v. BlackneyMichigan Supreme Court · 1935
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.