Opinion
May 15, 1902.
PRESENT: Stiness, C.J., Tillinghast and Rogers, JJ.
(1) Negligence. Master and Servant. Illegal Contract. Minors. In an action by an infant plaintiff against a master for negligence, the defendant will not be permitted to set up its violation of a statute, intended to protect the minor, as a defence to its own negligence in the service rendered by the minor.
TRESPASS ON THE CASE for negligence. Heard on demurrer to declaration, and demurrer overruled.
John W. Hogan, for plaintiff.
Walter B. Vincent, for defendant.
The court is of opinion that this case falls within the principle laid down by this court in Eagan v. Maguire, 21 R.I. 189; Baldwin v. Barney, 12 R.I. 392; and Blair v. Granger, 24 R.I. 17.
This is not a case to enforce an illegal contract, as was Birkett v. Chatterton, 13 R.I. 299, but an action to recover for the defendant's negligence, which is a question independent of the violation of the statute.
It would be a startling doctrine to say that a defendant could set up his own violation of a statute, intended to protect children of tender years, as a defence to his own negligence in the service rendered by them.
The demurrer is overruled.