Mullin
Mullin v. California Horseshoe Co.
Opinion
lead Opinion
This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff. The answer denied that the defendant was in any way responsible for the injuries complained of, and alleged that they were caused by the plaintiff’s own negligence.
It was proved at the trial that the plaintiff was employed by the defendant to work in its horseshoe-shop in November, 1891, and that he continued to work there until he was injured, on June 13,1892, at which time he was sixteen years of age. When he was employed he was taken by the foreman, Ingram, to one of the machines for making horseshoes, and was told that the machinist would show him what to do, and to obey whatever the machinist told him. There were four machines in the shop, and three boys were employed on each machine: the furnace-boy, the bender-boy, and the press-boy. The machinist, Brunig, had general supervision of the boys and directed and ordered them about. He put the plaintiff to work as a press-boy, and directed him generally about his work until he was injured.
The machines were worked by belts which ran up over a large revolving shaft that extended through the building and was operated by steam-power. This…