Glancy v. Kent

Superior Court of Rhode Island

Glancy v. Kent

1 R.I. Dec. 176

CourtSuperior Court of Rhode Island

DecidedJune 19, 1925

DocketLaw No.61075

StatusPublished

This text of 1 R.I. Dec. 176 (Glancy v. Kent) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Glancy v. Kent, 1 R.I. Dec. 176 (R.I. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

-TANNER, P. J.

This is a common law action for negligence brought by a minor through his next friend against an employer. The case is now heard upon demurrer to defendant’s additional plea, stating that the action should not be maintained because the minor was an employee under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and because the minor represented to the employer, contrary to the fact, that he was 16 years of age and legally qualified to work under the statutes of the State, and that the defendant relied upon this false representation in employing him.

While there is some difference in the authorities, we are of the opinion that the great weight of authority is to the effect that such a false representation does not constitute a minor not qualified to work under the statues an employee.

28 Ruling Case Law, page 766.

Note, Annotated Cases, 1918 B., page 680.

Lawyers’ Reports, Annotated, 1918 F., page 210 note.

Annotated Cases, 1919 B, pages 675 and 679.

Demurrer sustained.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

-TANNER, P. J.

This is a common law action for negligence brought by a minor through his next friend against an employer. The case is now heard upon demurrer to defendant’s additional plea, stating that the action should not be maintained because the minor was an employee under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and because the minor represented to the employer, contrary to the fact, that he was 16 years of age and legally qualified to work under the statutes of the State, and that the defendant relied upon this false representation in employing him.

While there is some difference in the authorities, we are of the opinion that the great weight of authority is to the effect that such a false representation does not constitute a minor not qualified to work under the statues an employee.

28 Ruling Case Law, page 766.

Note, Annotated Cases, 1918 B., page 680.

Lawyers’ Reports, Annotated, 1918 F., page 210 note.

Annotated Cases, 1919 B, pages 675 and 679.

Demurrer sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 R.I. Dec. 176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glancy-v-kent-risuperct-1925.