BARNARD KILGORE
v.
EDGAR E. HUDSON, A MINOR, BY W. E. HUDSON, HIS FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND
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.
The court held that it was error to direct a verdict for the plaintiff because the defendant should have been allowed to present a defense that the plaintiff was a trespasser and his employment was fraudulent.
A minor, Edgar E. Hudson, was injured while working at Barnard Kilgore's mill. The trial court granted an instructed verdict for the plaintiff after t…
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 Trespasser Status cases and more on FLexlaw
Edgar E. Hudson, a minor, by his father, W. E. Hudson, brought an action against Barnard Kilgore to recover damages for personal injuries. The injuries were incurred while working at a mill belonging to Kilgore. At the conclusion of the testimony, a motion for instructed verdict on the part of the plaintiff was granted and writ of error was prosecuted.
The third and fourth questions raise the point that the plaintiff was a trespasser on the premises of the defendant at the time he was injured and that his employment was procured through the fraudulent and unauthorized conduct of his father.
*582Defendant in error contends that there is nothing in the record to support this contention but the question appears to have been raised and there is some evidence in support of it. For this reason, it was error to direct a verdict. The defendant had a right to tender this defense and if proven, it was a bar to recovery.
We think the cause should be reversed and a new trial awarded. There seems to have been a misconception as to the manner of formulating the issues and the rights of the parties in a case of this kind. The statute brought in question, was designed to limit the employment of minors in various industries for which the employer is subject to prosecution but when the minor attempts to recover damages for personal injuries, he comes into court on the same terms as other litigants when the question of fraud and unauthorized conduct is involved. When this is the case, the pleadings are framed and the issues are made up and the trial had under the same rules and regulations as in any other case.
In this holding, we are not unmindful of what we said on a similar statute in J. Ray Arnold Lumber Corp. v. Richardson, 105 Fla. 204, 141 So. 133, and cases of like import. Here we have a different state of facts. The defendant contends that he was fraudulently imposed on and we know of no law or condition that bars such a defense when timely tendered and proven.
Reversed.
Brown, C. J., Whitfield, Buford, Chapman, Thomas and Adams, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Martin Co. & Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Drucella Carpenter & Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 132 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 1961)…causal relationship between the false statements and an injury. In our research on this question, which has been extensive, we have found only one Florida case which touches the question under discussion. In Kilgore v. Hudson, 1941, 148 Fla. 580, 4 So. 2d 865, this Court reversed a directed verdict in favor of a minor employee on the ground that the contention of the employer-defendant that the employment of the minor had been procured through the fraudulent and unauthorized conduct of his father ought t…
-
Barnard Kilgore v. Hudson, 153 Fla. 715 (Fla. 1943)…PER CURIAM: In Kilgore v. Hudson, et al., reported in 148 Fla. 580, 4 So. (2nd) 865, we reversed the judgment in this case because appellant was not permitted to prove a charge of fraud perpetrated on him with reference to the age of appellee Edgar E. Hudson. On a new trial, the plea of fraud was entered and eviden…
Authorities Cited
- J. Ray Arnold Lumber Corp. of Olustee v. Richardson, 105 Fla. 204 (Fla. 1932)