594
The Green Bag
of liability. The carrier cannot make something of a rate merely by calling it by that name. It cannot convert that which is in its essence a subject for regu lation, according to the law or policy of the several states, into the inexora bility of a rate protected by federal laws. . . . As we have pointed out, there is no doubt that by the common
law of this Commonwealth the plaintiff was not bound by the limitation of lia bility of which she was wholly ignorant. She could have been restricted in right of recovery only by express contract or by assent to a known regulation."
Child Labor Law.
Child Employed
in Violation of the Act Has Right of Action for Physical Injury-Private Right Arising from Breach of a Statutory Duty. Mass.
for a plaintifl' to prove a violation of a statute concurrent with his injury, but he must go further and show that a con dition lates has to which a casual theconnection statute directly with his re injury. It becomes necessary to deter mine the purpose of this statute. . . . “This statute is a declaration of legis
lative policy that parents and guardians or children undertaking to act in their own behalf shall no longer be permitted to bargain at all as to the work of chil dren ments. of tender It relates years to ainclass specified who are employ‘ 1835i able ciating to and protect avoiding themselves danger,byor apple‘ t0 re quest instructions as to matters beyond
their understanding, or to arrange l)?’ contract for their protection, or to resist
any compulsion arising from their 0W1
necessities or other circumstances. Th?“
In Berdos v. Tremont & Suflolk Mills,
would be difficulty in discovering ‘n'
decided by the Massachusetts Supreme Court July 25, the plaintiff was less
stances of failure to comply with the law arising from a tendency of both
than fourteen years old, St. 1909, c. 514, s. 56, prohibiting the employment of children under fourteen years of age in factories. He sued the company for
parties to such failure to conceal the wrong-doing. The statute has to d0 “ll-h
injuries received by his being cut by machinery in the cotton factory of the
mentally vital in its broader hearings to the future of mankind. These considera tions require the inference that the ffm'
defendant, in whose favor a verdict was
directed by the Superior Court. The Supreme Court held the direction of a verdict for the defendant reversible error, and sustained exceptions. The Court (Rugg, J.) said:—
the protection of childhood. It pertains to a subject of universal interest funda
edy intended by the Legislature against the delinquent employer was not 60"‘
fined to the delinquent one. The Fight of civil action in addition may well have been regarded asamore eflicacious means
“It is a general rule of statutory interpretation that a violation of a duty
of compelling observance of the law Therefore, while the public purposes Of
created by statute, resulting in damage
this act are important, any member of
to one of the class for whose benefit the duty was established, confers a right of
the public so situated with reference? its subject-matter as to suffer Spec”!
action upon the injured person.
damage by its infraction has a fight of
"A difficulty often arises to determine
action. . . .
whether a private right arises for breach
“Apparently the sole cause of tile
of the statutory duty imposed or whether
injury was the temperamental uneas"
the only consequence is to subject the violatortopunishment. ltis not enough
ness and heedlessness of the consequence of restless movements characteristic Oi
