IS.  Imtaxt  BMnx)TU  mat  Rsootbr  fob  Injury  to  Whiob  Hx  CoimiiBUTai
WBBH.  —  An  infant  employee  whose  employer  has  not  instruMed  him,
as  it  was  his  duty  to  do,  and  who,  while  in  the  discharge  of  hie  duty  ■•
be  understands  it,  suflfers  an  injury  in  ooneequence  of  the  employer's
Begligence,  may  maiatain  an  action  against  hie  employer  therefor,  not-
withstanding t^t^  by  reason  of  his  youth  and  inexperience,  and  the
failure  of  the  employer  to  instruct  him,  be  did  some  act^  in  the  perfc
aace  of  bis  duty  according  to  the  judgment  and  knowledge  be
which  contributed  to  the  injury,  but  which  be  did  not  know,  and  was
not  advised,  would  be  likely  to  injure  him.    IdL

ML  CoiiTBiBUTOBT  NxouQSNOu  OV  MiNOB  Emplotbb. — The  oapaeity  of  n
minor  employee  aged  thirteen  years  and  four  months  is  the  measure  ef
bis  responsibility;  and  if  he  has  not  the  ability  to  foresee  and  avoid  the
danger  to  which  be  may  be  exposed,  negligence  will  not  be  imputed  to
bim  if  he  unwittingly  exposes  himself  to  danger,  but  bis  employer  will
be  held  answerable.    BtraufMdge  v.  Bradfwd^  670.
n*  OoirrBiBOTOBr  NBouoxifOE  ov  Mikor  Emplotu — Qannox  ioe  Jumr.
—  When  employee  aged  thirteen  years  and  four  months  is  ehaiged  with
contributory  negligence,  the  question  as  to  whether  he  bad  sufficient  un-
derstanding to  comprehend  and  guard  against  the  peril  he  wae  in  ia  for
the  jury  under  all  of  the  circumstances  of  the  ease.    Id.
liL  BMPLOTn  DOIS  NOT  AjSaUlCX  THB  RiSK  OF  TBX  SaVBTT  OV  MaOHDIBBT

VHUBBS  H>  Kmowb  the  danger,  or  it  is  so  obvious  that  he  will  be  pre-
sumed to  know  it.  He  takes  the  risk  of  known  dai|ger%  and  not  d
ethers.  Mytn  v.  ffudwn  Iron  Oo,,  176.
