Judges: CHAPMAN, J.
Attorneys: Herbert S. Phillips, for Plaintiff in Error;
L.D. McGregor, and Hampton, Bull Crom, for Defendant in Error.
Filed: Apr. 14, 1938
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 421 This cause is before the Court on writ of error to a final judgment for plaintiff below entered by the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Florida. The declaration was drawn under Sections 5943 and 5944 C.G.L., and the count submitted to the jury is, viz.: "`Plaintiff further sues the defendant for that on or about the 6th day of November, 1934, defenda
Summary: [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 421 This cause is before the Court on writ of error to a final judgment for plaintiff below entered by the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Florida. The declaration was drawn under Sections 5943 and 5944 C.G.L., and the count submitted to the jury is, viz.: "`Plaintiff further sues the defendant for that on or about the 6th day of November, 1934, defendan..
More
I agree to the conclusion reached in this case upon the ground that the fifth count of the declaration stated a cause of action for damages for the injury sustained by the plaintiff in the death of his minor child while employed by the defendant in violation of Section 5944 C.G.L. 1927; that the evidence in the case supports the allegations of the declaration and that the American doctrine as applicable to the violation of such statutes is as stated by Labatt on Master Servant and approved by this Court in the case of J. Ray Arnold Lumber Co. v. Richardson,105 Fla. 204, 141 South. Rep. 133. The doctrine as announced by Labatt is as follows:
"The American courts proceed upon the theory that the violation of a statutory duty constitutes negligence per se in respect of any individual member of the class of employees for whose benefit it was imposed upon the employer." See Labatt's Master Servant, p. 5943, Sec. 1906.
