*1 op Registration. Hanson v. State Board any provision whereby not make the attendance of required testimony pro- can witnesses be or their ’ ’ cured. Both the State and the United States Constitu- provide may deprived tions liberty, that no one of life, property process
or without due of law. In complaint against this petitioner; no case, written was filed specific charges against no were made copy him; he was not furnished with the charges opportunity which he was to answer; no filing’ complaint a written answer to a verified given testimony against him; no was introduced given him; he was not to cross-examine against procedure the witnesses him. The irregular, illegal, and void. Plaintiff is entitled prayed. relief JJ., and McDonald, concurred with Pot- Wiest J. ter, THOMAS v. MORTON SALT CO. Abrogation Disability Infants — to Contract. Legislature may abrogate disability of infants to contract. Compensation
2. Master and Servant —Workmen’s Act —Infants. Employed minors between of 16 years, and 18 whether legally illegally employed, are within terms workmen’s (Act act 1927), unless, Pub. Acts terms, they accordance with its elect otherwise. Applicability and effect of workmen’s ease minors, annotation in 818; see 14 A. L. R. 33 A. L. R. 337; 49 1435; A. L. R. 60 A. L. R. 847. Reports, op Employment Contracts—Illegal Minors —Child
3. Same — Labor Laws. *2 Aet No. tween ment made penalties employed, gates to certain Pub. Acts 162, to in void. of provisions violation of child labor extent and 1927, subjecting judicial of workmen’s years, rule whether laws employed contract legally carrying minors of act, abro- criminal illegally employ- be- Estoppel. 4. Same —Constitutional Law — Employed years minor between 16 legally and 18 whether or illegally employed, accept who elects benefits of work- (Act men’s No. Pub. Acts deny estopped constitutionality. its McDonald, J., dissenting. (Fred George W.), Error to Clair; St. J. Sub- (Docket mitted 5, 1930. June No. 45, Calendar 35,042.) April Decided 7, 1931. by
Case Howard Thomas, administrator of the Pringle, estate of Harold J. a deceased minor 17 age, against Company, Morton Salt for personal injuries resulting plaintiff’s in death employ. decedent Judgment while in defendant’s plaintiff. brings for Defendant error. Reversed. plaintiff. Stewart Black, & for Cady Pepper, & for defendant. (dissenting). J. This action McDonald,
brought damages injuries resulting recover in Pringle, alleged death Harold James by have negligence been caused of the defend- ant. Pringle
At the Harold time accident, James plaintiff was a minor. claims he was between age. employed by 17 and 18 He was Salt v, Thomas Marys- helper its electrician’s defendant as an greas- oiling and plant. consisted His duties ville parts of the ing various motors situated electric large suspended over plant, some of which were constantly main- In there these vats steel vats. boiling hot brine. 21 inches of tained about the work- were accessible to electric made motors by each vat from which men a ladder at the side of platform extending they climb onto a wooden could February 21, 1929, and On across above roof. Harold afternoon, at about Pringle three o’clock up platforms of these onto one climbed way platform gave grease oil motor. The He out the hot below. crawled he fell into brine he 50 feet before was discovered walked about hospital, He was rushed another workman. *3 night. parents he died at ten o’clock that His where department compensation with the for filed a claim labor, industry. day hearing A was set for of deputy In meantime a commissioner. before unsuccessfully sought they who counsel, retained proceedings. deputy The commis- discontinue the in favor of the claimants. rendered an award sioner appeal formal taken, a motion to discon- An commissioner, order denied and an tinue was deputy. affirming award of the The was entered for Au- is now in this court review. On award gust common-law action was com- 1929, this in a verdict for the The trial resulted menced. refusing plaintiff a a In motion for $25,000. for required plaintiff file a the court trial, new Judgment entered $5,000. of remittitur brought error. defendant has $20,000. The principal question involved relates plaintiff’s jurisdiction of the court to determine rights the defendant’s in common-law action. It is Reports.
theory provisions that the ease lies within compensation workmen’s as in Act law, amended (see Comp. No. 162, Pub. Acts 1927 Laws plaintiff and therefore barred from a plaintiff’s that common-law action. It is the claim apply the amendment of il- 1927 does cases legal employment such this, if and, it does, it is pres- unconstitutional for which reasons we shall ently discuss.
The first to be considered is whether the 1927 amendment to the workmen’s applies injury where the cases -accidental is to a ages minor between the of 16 and 18 who is unlaw- fully employed. applicable parts of the amend- ment read as follows: ‘employee’ The term “Sec. as used in this act * * # be construed to mean:
shall Every person “2. in the . service of another, under any express implied, including hire, contract of including working partnerships, aliens, receiving members of irrespective wages profits such, from including purpose minors, and also who, for the be act, shall considered the same and have the power employees: same to contract as adult Pro- vided, minor between the of sixteen eighteen whose at the time illegal shall be shown to shall, be permits, absence fraudulent use of or certificates only single compensation in which case shall paid, provided receive double that *4 elsewhere in this act.” illegally
Before this amendment, all minors em- ployed excepted compensation were from the act. defining statute then in in force the term “em- ployee” said: including legally per-
“And also minors who are mitted to work under the laws of the State.” Salt Thomas v. language amendment, from the is omitted This pro- together with the statement fact, which adopt legislature a new to intended viso, shows respect of minors policy to with employed, illegally including bring those all, and to operation compensation law. of the within the opinion bringing all that are of the But we separating illegally employed law, within the minors awarding much and twice as into two them classes legis- compensation other, to one class as to illegal both classification established an lature has employers to minors in contravention and as to protection equal clause of Constitution. stated in Mackin test The constitutional Mich. as follows: Co., Axle Detroit-Timkin power is within “It employees, employers classify if the clas- and both arbitrary and for rea- fanciful or is not sification upon policy, public based substantial sons sought object germane to be to the distinctions, is existing accomplished con- act, not limited impartially equally only, applies and ditions each member of class.” question, Applying will test readily appear unreason- the classification is that arbitrary, it is based no sub- able and apply impartially distinctions does stantial equally each member of the class. What illegally employed giving good reason is there for only age much under 16 half as minors illegally employed minors as those Why are and 18? should an who between 16 em- ployer illegally employs who minors over required age pay while double employ pay single those pensation? com- who minors under 16 employers penalized
If
are to be
*5
Reports,
illegally employing
seem more in
it would
minors,
impose
pen-
justice
harmony
the
with reason and
Clearly
alty
employ
younger
on
who
class.
those
gives privileges
the classification
and immunities
to some which it
of the same class.
denies
others
equal
guaranty
It
violates
constitutional
as
protection of the
laws
is therefore invalid. The
holding.
trial court was
in so
But
that,
it is claimed
the minor in
case
elected to come under
act,
ad-
estopped
denying
validity.
ministrator
from
its
Cooley
In
v. Boice
245 Mich.
held
Bros.,
325, we
accepted
having
by
that,
benefits
elect-
ing
by
provisions,
to be bound
its
was
estopped
questioning
constitutionality.
from
its
Of
applies
employees.
course,
same rule
applied
whether
should be
in this case.
repeal
modify
The amendment does not
or
expressed
public
child labor law. In that law is
policy
regard
of the State in
prohibits,
penalty,
employ-
minors. It
under
their
except
compliance
ment
with certain conditions.
complied
by
These conditions were not
with
the de-
employing
Pringle.
fendant
Harold
The contract
illegal.
complete nullity.
more
than
It was a
prohibited
penalty
It was
under
statute and
utterly
incapable
therefore void.
It was
being
estoppel
confirmed or ratified and no
could
against
acting
failing
arise
under it.
the minor for
to act
principle
“It
a is well-settled
of law that all con-
prohibited by
tracts which are founded on an act
penalty
although
statute under a
void,
are
ex-
pressly
Reidy’s
declared to be so.” In re
Estate,
See, also, Pliter, Cashin v. Mich. 386 697). 1913C, Cas. Salt Thomas *6 It no existence whatever. has “Such a contract any purpose, legal entity and neither ac- no
has party it; validate and a to can nor inaction of tion party as an invoked a to it can be no conduct of invalidity. estoppel against asserting The au- its agreed principle.” uniformly are on this thorities p. R.6 C. L. 819. a master and cannot create serv-
ant out contract. It has not relation of a void at- tempted amendment. The do so most that can be said that it a minor to and is allows contract employee meaning become an within the the act though illegal. his is But as have we pointed already out, there is a wide difference be- illegal tween an contract and a void contract. A void contract is no contract all. It at does not exist. nothing It cannot be rescinded there because is rescind. It cannot be enforced because there is nothing to enforce. There can be no election under it. For reasons, these the decedent’s administrator estopped attacking constitutionality is not from of the amendment. assignment,
In another error claimed is because question of the refusal of the court to submit the contributory negligence jury. to the # eyewitnesses There no were to the accident. The plaintiff put in all evidence of the facts and circum- attending stances which did not show contributory negligence part on the decedent. testimony There was no other from which an in- contributory ference of negligence could be drawn. complete In view of this lack of evidence, the court refusing to submit the jury. Teipel Hilsendegen, 44 Mich.
In a motion for was'urged a new trial it that the verdict was excessive. The court reduced it to judgment $20,000 and entered a for that amount. Michigan Reports. It his conclusion. inclined disturb We are damages large jury but the true awarded reasonably evidence as within the sum awarded earnings. suffering pain loss of injury. Dur- after the for seven hours decedent lived excruciating ing time he most all of that suffered young pain. and at the He an industrious man earning capacity had death an $24 time expectancy years. was 43 The trial life week. His court said: figures
“Using rule re- these established present lating determination of value sums *7 computation payable in ex- future, of a sum might reasonably arrived $14,000 at, cess of present representing the value the decedent’s earnings prospective he after would have attained majority.” his pain
If for amount the verdict and suffer- the earnings ing is within reason, and for loss of view should it exces- evidence, of the this court not call by any case, In uninfluenced other con- sive. jury than that of the the could evidence, sideration computed damages have at amount of $20,000. Such an amount is excessive. presented by require
Other record questions very In a no was'well tried. discussion. case correctly charge, clear the court submitted just jury. no cause issues to the The defendant has complaint. for judgment costs should be with affirmed, plaintiff. brought suit recover dam- J. Plaintiff Potter,
ages
Pringle,
for the death of Harold J.
recovered
judgment
amount,
in a substantial
and defendant
brings
(see
If Act
Pub.
1927
127,
Acts
error.
621
Thomas
v. Morton
Salt
Comp.
plain-
§
1929,
Laws
constitutional,
remedy
injury
tiff cannot
but the
recover,
any,.is
and death of
if
decedent,
under the work-
men’s
at
law. Decedent
the time
was,
injury
of the
which
death,
resulted
his
between
ages
years.
16 and
February
The accident
21,1929.
involved occurred
It is claimed
No. 162,
Act
Pub. Acts
is uncon-
applies
stitutional, in so far as it
to minors between
years, illegally employed,
of 16
injured employee
the trial court so held. The
died
before
claima
filed for
and before
brought.
suit
It will not be controverted
at
that,
any right
injured
common law,
of action
an
which
employee might
against
employer,
have
his
negligent injury
employee,
latter’s
died with
party injured.
remedy
To
this condition, the
(3 Comp.
so-called survival act
Laws
seq.)
passed,
et
under which the
of action
employee may
which the deceased
had,
have
in his
against
employer,
lifetime,
survived the em-
ployee
personal
passed
represent-
death and
’s
to his
ative,
an
to be
asset
recovered for the benefit
gen-
of the estate of
A
deceased.
sentiment was
being
erated that, no death act
in force, when an
employee
saw that
to an
*8
was in-
preferred
he
evitable,
his instant death
his
severe
injury
employees
needlessly
of
lives
were
—that
cheaper
'employer,
it
sacrificed—because was
for the
(3 Comp.
death
and, the
act
Laws
result,
1929,
14062)
passed,
provided
§§ 14061,
which
a new
distinctly
different
of
which did
action,
cause
proceeds
not
at
law,
exist
common
the
of which were
pass by
not
of
did
assets
estate,
the
person
personal represent-
death
the
of
killed to his
competent
It
ative.
will not
be claimed was not
Beports.
622
253
the
act,
the survival
abolish
for the
employer
liability
the
of
act,
death
the common-law
employee,
and the
negligent
an
of
the death
given
under
survivors
of action
certainty
place
thereof
and substitute
act,
neg
regardless
injury,
of
compensation for
of
negligence
contributory
employer,
ligence
of
negligence
employee,
risk,
assumed
of the
by the work
done
This was
of fellow servants.
(2 Comp.
§
1929,
Laws
men’s
a constitu
seq.)
to be
declared
has been
et
which
police power.
of
tional exercise
§
force,
Comp.
5429, was
1915,
Laws
When
negligence,
guilty
matter
employer
as a
employing
illegally
and was de
a minor,
law, in
negligence
fellow serv
prived
defenses of
of the
assumption
Brunt,
v.
of risk. Gee
ants and
Rapids
v. Petersen
Trust Co.
Grand
679;
Mich.
Szelag
Beverage
v.
208;
Jordan,
219 Mich.
Co.,
v.
8;
230 Mich. Kucinski
Foss,
672; Gwitt
Mich.
Cleaning
Laundry
City
Works,
it, is based provides: age, illegally
a. As to minors under 16 guilty negligence employed, as a *9 623 Salt Thomas v. deprived of of the defenses matter of and is law, negligence servants, of of fellow risk and assumed and all the may for action held liable a common-law injury;
damages resulting from the ages persons 16 between the b. That as to years, illegally employed, the .statute holds and 18 single compensa- liable thereunder for upon only good if he acted in reliance faith, tion though age, which, a certificate of fraudulently person fact, false in used employment; employed, to induce the and employed person illegally is That where the c. years, and without of 16' and between part, employee contributory upon fraud compensation;— to double held entitled classification is unreason- contended this it is upon arbitrary, no distinc- based substantial able, apply impartially equally to and does tion, age or class. question persons statute, no but the as to
There is years age and as to minors under over years is valid. The is whether it applicable invalid to minors between 16 and as competent age. It is legislation applicable particular enact classes of persons employed, long so as the classification has equally ap- in' reason, some basis the law is plicable persons particular It all of each class. agrees is immaterial whether the court with long basis of classification or it is based not; so upon subject legislative reason, is a considera- tion and determination. there in rea- Is basis may prompted legislative son which have action, persons, which the classification of between age, may 16 and 18 rest? *10 Reports.
624 253 By Comp. (see Comp. 2 § 5331 2 Laws Laws 1915, employment § between 1929, the of children manufacturing age 14 and establish- in prohibited, permit issued, ments was was unless employer placed delivered to the on file in its “every employer complying business office; and provisions liberty with the of this section shall be at employ person presenting permit the so the here- justified considering’ inbefore referred to, and is in treating person age such in as of shown such permit transpire and shall not if liable, it that person age represented such is under the in such permit, any greater employer extent than such person age rep- would be liable if such were of the provision substantially resented.” This re- by By enacted Act No. Pub. 280, Acts 1917. Act age 206, Pub. Acts 1923, limit was raised years, by and Act No. Pub. 312, Acts 1925, age years, limit raised all with the same provision employer’s liability as contained Comp. 2in Laws 1915, brought Act No. Pub. Acts 1927, the work- harmony men’s ute of 1925 law into with the stat-
regulating of children. had a size, consider the probable discretion of the minor, the ease might perpetrate with which he fraud the em- ployer, inducing employment, provide his and to injured fraudulently if that or if he had in- killed, illegal employment, duced his own the same com- pensation legally if accrue as he were em- should ployed. employer, acting good ought faith, penalized. hand, to be On other could prohibited well the em- consider statute age ployment minors between 16 and 18 permit, without a and hold liable for Salt Thomas wrong- compensation, in case such minor was double employed, permit. fully Double com- such without pensation might nature of a be considered neg- penalty imposed careless, intentional, for an ligent in case law, cast, statute, violation of employee, upon dependents. death of the minor Ppb. Act No. 162, Acts covers— * * # “Every person in the service of another, including purpose minors, who, act, shall be considered the and have the same same *11 power employees.” to contract as adult complete plaintiff’s upon
It is a
answer to
assault
validity
by accepting
of the statute that,
its
estopped
deny
validity
he is
benefits,
act. American
Ins.
v. Balmer,
238 Mich.
Life
Cooley
580;
Bros.,
v. Boice
Fead, J. concur in reversal without a new trial. legislature may abrogate disability of in- (see fants to contract. Act No. 162, Pub. Acts 1927 Comp. 8413), grants Laws minors “the power employees” same to contract as adult purposes of the workmen’s law, and subjects legally illegally employed, whether them, operation, to its unless, in accordance with terms, its they abrogates elect otherwise. To extent judicial rule that a contract of made in carrying violation of child labor laws criminal penalties employee is void. The minor is under the estoppel deny same as the constitu- tionality. Michigan Reports. misunderstanding, attention is called avoid To years was over 16 minor at bar fact that the
age minors under No. 162 of Act and the effect passed upon. age nor in issue is not JJ., J.,C. North, Clark, Wiest, Butzel, did not sit. J., concurred. Sharpe, MOTOR CO. CHEVROLET PLANTE LA Compen- Compensation Act — and Servant —Workmen’s Master sable Accident. properly- compensation act was under workmen’s Compensation caused employee whose death was deceased to wife of denied ill, in ascending toilet stairway while from he was by fall fall; there caused his as to what evidence absence connection between tending to show causal being no evidence employment and his death. *12 Industry. Department of Labor Certiorari to (Docket January 50, Cal- Submitted 1931. April 35,153.) 1931. Decided endar No. Myrtle presented for com- her claim M. La Plante Company, pensation against Divi- Motor Chevrolet Corporation, the ac- of General Motors sion Joseph La husband, cidental death of her William employ. re- Plaintiff Plante, while defendant’s hemorrhage an acci- On the as to whether cerebral act, see meaning dent within of workmen’s 1614; 13 R. in A. A. L. annotation L. R.