HomeMy WebLinkAbout2214 , • • ~ ~
Laundries v. :~~13en, r la. 15~0. 193 So. 544,
the court stated that tna puroos~ of §5~)44, C.G.L.,
1927, ~oas to orotect cnildren on the basis of age.
The sam~ can 5e said for §450.111(2), F.S. 1971,
. "Tha rationale for the result reached in the
Tam~a Shipbuilding cas~ civil liability
without faul` or refe=ence to a causal re-
~ lat ionshio be~~•~een tnz vio? ation of law and •
the injury - is not elaborated in the opinion.
:•le assw-ne that the decision was based on the
notion that tha result c,;as essential as a mzans
oi achieving :he statu~o~y objective. This
basis ~or th~ de~is~on perhaps no longer exists
in vi_e:a oF the facL t:~3~ Cnaptsr 450, F.S. 1971,
providz~ an!plz m~ans ~or ir_ve~tigating violations
o~ tne child labor la~•:~ (§c50.121) and criminal
sanc~ions (§450.141) , Add~tionally, we assur.me
that the c?acision may i:ave bzen in part inspired
by the incidence of czild labor durin~ the
depression ~~ears whic : provided the social and
economic s~tting for t':e case.
"Based upo;~ the forego? ng, it is our vie~o tnat
-th~ Tampa Shipbuildin~ case is no longer con-
trolling precedent fo~ the iraposition of civil
liability ~~itnout fault for a v~olation of
§450.111(2), F.S. 1971 whare there is no causal '
relationship between sucn violation and the
asserted inju~y. Since no basis for liability
other thar_ the ~are statutory violation is re-
vealed by the factual alleg3tions of the second
a~ended complaint, we h~ld that the trial court ,
rightly dis~issed the S3Til° ~or failure to state
Z C3USE' Oz action. ~
~ ~he instant case was decided by the District Court prior to the
F
f issuanc~ of our o~inio:~ in deJesus v. S~aboard Coast?ine Railroad
i
~ Companv, 281 So.2d 198 (F1a.1973). In d~Jesus, c~e reaffirmed our
~ '
; earlier hol3~ngs that statutes designed to protect a particular
t
~ class of persons from their inability to protect thems2lves estab lish
~ a st3n~3rd of duty a~in to str~c~ liabilityo ar_d that a violation of
~
t
` such a s~atute w3s r_~gl~c~encz ~e= se. ~•7e r_o:s also reaffirm our
S
r
~ holdir.7 in Tar.na SziDau:ildinq L~at child labor latas are stat~.:tes of
~
~ t;~is zyp~. We do not agree c,~i~h L'ne District Co~.trt t:zat the addition
~ o~ crzrtinal sanc~io^s distin~:is~J~ our preser_t cc?i?d la'~or la.vs
~
fro~ ~hose in f0!"C? a~ ~ne tim~ ^a:-~oa Ship~u? ldir_g ~Jas decide3. The
;Y~
~~~3
issu~ ir_~ol~~ed here ~s civi~ lia~~?ity for the injury sustaine3 by
~~a
th~ cE~ilct; it is ~ rrelevant tha~ -tne Legislaturz has n~:•r ,?ade it a
:J
;:'3
- cri~e ~o e.iploy *ninors c~~ithout cor~liznce to statu~ory require;,~~nts_
- T::ere~ore, t.~e dec sion o- t~~ D~strict Cour~ o~ Ap~e~l, 1 _
.
-s .
Fourth District~ L?Z t~":1S C~1SE' C~'.:3S:1°t~ ~3f1C~ the CcZi13~ Z:3 r~itl4`?C~~'~
7:
~
~~=N - 3 -
~:;a s~s~~+ c~} ~
~ 9p~U1((.~U
3~
~_'y
.'iL
;
'~~'5.~
4E"~
'
, ~ _ _ _ _