JAMES RANDALL BALDRIDGE, BY HIS NEXT FRIEND, HIS FATHER, WILLIAM J. BALDRIDGE, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT HATCHER, D/B/A HATCHER'S GARBAGE DISPOSAL SERVICE, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A 14-year-old boy suffered a broken finger while operating dangerous garbage compression machinery in violation of Florida's child labor statute. The court held that violation of the statute imposing strict liability on employers, not mere negligence, and reversed the trial court's jury instruction that treated the violation as merely evidence of negligence.
Violation of the statute prohibiting employment of minors to operate dangerous machinery constitutes strict liability on the employer, not mere negligence. The jury instruction that violation was evidence of negligence was improper; the statute imposes liability regardless of how safely the minor operated the machinery, and the minor's contributory negligence is not a defense.
[1] Employment of a minor in violation of a statute prohibiting such employment in connection with dangerous machinery constitutes strict liability, not merely evidence of ne…
[2] Contributory negligence of a minor is not a defense when the employer has violated a statute prohibiting the employment of minors in dangerous occupations.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“But this is no ordinary case. The legislature, in prohibiting the employment of minors to operate dangerous machinery, has imposed strict liability on the employer.”
Establishes that the statute creates strict liability, distinguishing this case from ordinary negligence cases and rejecting the evidence-of-negligence instruction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRandy Baldridge, age 14, was employed by Robert Hatcher to operate a garbage truck with dangerous compression machinery. While operating the device th…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Evidence Of Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
Here we have the opposite case from Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co. v. deJesus, 266 So.2d 108. There a violation of an ordinary statute was alleged, and the jury was charged that if they found a violation that it constituted negligence per se. *113Here the ground of liability is the employment by Hatcher of Randy Baldridge, age 14, to operate dangerous machinery on a garbage truck, in violation of Fla.Stat. § 450.061(1) (1971),1 F.S.A. While operating the device which compresses garbage into the body of the truck, young Baldridge broke his finger.
The jury was charged, over plaintiff’s objection, that violation of the statute was "evidence of negligence,” substantially in accord with Standard Jury Instruction 4.11, 31 F.S.A., which in deJesus was found appropriate to the ordinary case.
But this is no ordinary case. The legislature, in prohibiting the employment of minors to operate dangerous machinery, has imposed strict liability on the employer. In effect, the employment is said to be the act from which the injury follows as the foreseeable consequence. This places causation at an antecedent point, and the minor’s contributory negligence in the operation of the machinery is no defense. The Third Edition of Prosser on Torts makes this point in at least four sections, at pages 202, 435, 436, 468 and 538. Our Supreme Court has made the point clear in Tampa Shipbuilding & Engineering Corp. v. Adams.2 There the court upheld as sufficient a complaint whose essential allegations amount to the unlawful employment of a minor under sixteen, who was permitted to work in a foundry and workshop, where he attempted to operate an elevator, from which he either fell or, having become frightened, jumped. Tami-ami Gun Shop v. Klein,3 where the defendant unlawfully sold a firearm, is to like effect. In that case the purchaser and his buddies said he was over eighteen. A similar argument is made here. Randy Baldridge, though not then fifteen, weighed 210 pounds. This must raise precisely the point the legislature had in mind in protecting minors from certain inherently dangerous conduct. If size were the measure of maturity of judgment, King Kong could be President.
Reversed and remanded.
LILES, A. C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Freehauf v. Sch. Bd. OF Seminole Cnty., 623 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…t in hazardous employment contrary to statute); Scott v. Independent School District No. 709, Duluth, 256 N.W. 2d 485 (Minn.1977) (child at school failed to wear safety goggles in school class contrary to statute and lost eye); Baldridge v. Hatcher, 266 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 2d DCA1972) (minor hired in dangerous employment contrary to statute). Children injured while in the custody or under the supervision of a school authority may have common law causes of action for failure to supervise or protect them. See O’Ca…
-
Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Pedro Nieves deJESUS, 266 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)…hich the statutes involved were enacted for the purpose of forbidding dangerous practices, implying that ■. certain injuries were the foreseeable consequence of the proscribed conduct. This is a situation we have encountered in Baldridge v. Hatcher, 266 So. 2d 112, and that case should be read in conjunction with this one. In the case at bar, the railroad appeals from a.judgment in favor of de-Jesus, whose automobile collided with a parked tank car blocking a crossing at night. There were no lights, flares o…
-
Pedro Nieves deJESUS v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 281 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 1973)…eption in the certified question of those “specifically adopted for the purpose of establishing a stricter duty of care.” From the Court’s reference to its decision in another case decided on the same day as this one (Baldridge v. Hatcher, Fla.App., 266 So. 2d 112), it seems that the exception was meant to encompass statutes which establish a standard akin to strict liability. We have considered violations of this more serious, strict-liability type of statute to be negligence per se and have held that even c…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tampa Shipbuilding & Eng'g Corp. v. Adams, 132 Fla. 419 (Fla. 1938)
- Tamiami GUN Shop v. Klein, 116 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 1959)
- Lewis v. City of Miami, 127 Fla. 426 (Fla. 1937)
- Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Pedro Nieves deJESUS, 266 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)