“The misconduct of one assuming to take charge of a child, but to whom it has not been entrusted, will not preclude a recovery on its part for the negligence of the company.[523] In fact many of the American courts hold that no amount of negligence on the part of parents and guardians will excuse those injuring a child;[524] especially, if the action for such injury is brought by the child and not by the parents to recover damages for the death of their little one.”[525]
Alas, for the poor mother’s peace of mind, there was a Job’s comforter on board, and he opened his mouth, and although he did not bray as he should have done, being what he was, he spake thus:—
“The law in the State of Massachusetts is that the negligence of those who have the charge of children, or invalids, unable to take care of themselves, will injuriously affect their right of action.”[526]
“Thank goodness we are not near the Hub of the universe now,” I exclaimed, sharply.
“And very much the same rule is laid down in England, and in the States of Maine, New York, and Indiana.[527] In England where a child five years old was in the charge of his grandmother and was injured by a train while crossing the track, it was held that he was so identified with his old granny that on account of her carelessness an action in his name could not be maintained against the company.[528] And where a passing train cut off the leg of a three and a half year old child, the court considered that the company were not responsible, unless it was shown that he had strayed upon the track through their negligence or default.[529] And in the United States it has been held that to allow an infant, four years old, to wander at its own sweet will in the public streets, is such negligence on the part of the parents as will prevent the child recovering for any damages sustained.”[530]
“But not if the child were six, and the street a quiet one”[531]—I broke in, but my adversary continued:—
“Or to suffer a child of two summers to cross a street traversed by a horse-railway.”[532]
“But a five year old may cross such a street,”[533] I again broke in.
“Or even to cross a street and go a few yards down to its house.”[534] Here he stopped.
“I have read somewhere that in England they take more pains to protect an oyster than a child,”[535] remarked one of the listeners.