Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 6.djvu/416

 402 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY

imposed any new statutory duty on the master) were intended to modify "the fellow-servant doctrine," and not to affect in any way the doctrine of assumed risk. In the Knisley case defendant refused or neglected to obey the mandatory provision of the Factory Act imposing the specific duty upon him of placing guards on cogwheels of his machinery. Owing to the absence of these guards, and apparently not by reason of any personal carelessness, plaintiff's arm was drawn into the cogs and so crushed and torn that it had to be amputated at the shoulder a peculiarly distressing case. In this case plaintiff was a young woman of full age. The New York court recog- nizes no difference in the rule by reason of infancy, however, for in White vs. Witteman Lithographic Co. the same rule under similar circumstances was applied to a child of fourteen. 1 The question of the assumption of "statutory risks" has been adjudicated upon in Illinois in several cases, but the exact question of public policy involved is apparently still undecided by its highest court. The decisions would make the final adop- tion of the English rule more probable (see Litchfield Coal Co. vs. Taylor, 81 111. 590; Wesley Coal Co. vs. Taylor, 84 111. 126; compare Chi., etc., Coal Co. vs. Petersen, 34 111. Ap. 114, with Swift & Co. vs. Fae, 66 111. Ap. 651, and Mo. St. L. & P. R. Co. vs. Thompson, 15 111. Ap. 117). It has been held in Indiana, Missouri, and Illinois that where there is a general public ordinance regulating the speed of railway trains passing near or through cities, enacted for the benefit of the public, an employe of a railroad who continues in its employment with knowledge of the violation of the ordinance (without contrib- uting actively to its violation) does not assume the risk of injury, nor is he by reason of his employment deprived of any of the benefits of the ordinance to which other citizens are entitled. 2

1 131 N. Y. 631; see also Graves vs. Brewer, 4 Ap. Div. 327; De Young vs. Irving, 5 Ap. Div. 499, which contains a pointed criticism of Knisley vs. Pratt, though the court is constrained to follow its authority ; also E. S. Higgins Carpet Co vs. O'Keefe, 79 Fed. 810.

a Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. vs. Moore, admr. 152 Ind. 350; East St. L. R. Co. vs. Eggman, 170 111. 538; 111. Cent. R. Co. vs. Gilbert, 157 111. 354; Bluedorn vs Mo. Pac. R. Co., 108 Mo. 439 ; contra Fleming vs. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., 27 Minn. III.