From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

White v. Wittemann Lithographic Company

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 1, 1892
30 N.E. 236 (N.Y. 1892)

Summary

In White v. Wittemann Lithographic Co., 131 N.Y. 631, it was assumed that a boy of thirteen understood the danger of getting his hand caught in cogs, and as stated by Labatt, in his work on Master and Servant, the duty of instructing minors, being predicated upon the fact that without such instruction they would be exposed to avoidable dangers of which they are presumably ignorant, it follows that, after they have been properly instructed, their minority will usually cease to be a material factor in estimating the extent of the employers' liability.

Summary of this case from Mitchell v. Comanche Cotton Oil Co.

Opinion

Argued February 12, 1892

Decided March 1, 1892

James C. Church for appellant.

Benjamin B. Kenyon for respondent.



EARL, Ch. J. reads for affirmance.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.


Summaries of

White v. Wittemann Lithographic Company

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 1, 1892
30 N.E. 236 (N.Y. 1892)

In White v. Wittemann Lithographic Co., 131 N.Y. 631, it was assumed that a boy of thirteen understood the danger of getting his hand caught in cogs, and as stated by Labatt, in his work on Master and Servant, the duty of instructing minors, being predicated upon the fact that without such instruction they would be exposed to avoidable dangers of which they are presumably ignorant, it follows that, after they have been properly instructed, their minority will usually cease to be a material factor in estimating the extent of the employers' liability.

Summary of this case from Mitchell v. Comanche Cotton Oil Co.

In White v. Wittemann Lithographic Co. it was held that in an action to recover damages for injuries received by an infant who is sui juris, from coming in contact with machinery while in defendant's employ, proof that the employer omitted to instruct the employee as to using the machinery did not impose liability upon the former, provided the latter knew by experience or observation the nature of the machinery and the danger to be apprehended from it.

Summary of this case from Makin v. Pettebone Cataract Paper Co.

In White v. Wittemann Lithographic Co., 131 N.Y. 631, the plaintiff was thirteen years of age and was injured in a factory after an employment of three months.

Summary of this case from McCann v. Mathison
Case details for

White v. Wittemann Lithographic Company

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES WHITE, an Infant, by Guardian, Appellant, v . WITTEMANN…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Mar 1, 1892

Citations

30 N.E. 236 (N.Y. 1892)
30 N.E. 236

Citing Cases

Mitchell v. Comanche Cotton Oil Co.

In Buckley v. Gutta Percha Rubber Mfg. Co., 113 N.Y. 540, it was held that a child of twelve who, after…

McCann v. Mathison

The court there held that it is not negligence simply to employ a minor of the age of twelve years on a…