Printable Format38-602. Children under 18, employment; rules and regulations. No child under eighteen (18) years of age shall be at any time employed in any occupation, trade or business which is in any way dangerous or injurious to the life, health, safety, morals or welfare of such minor. The state labor commissioner is hereby authorized and empowered, from time to time, to hold public hearings to determine work, trade or occupations which are within the prohibition of this section, and he shall adopt appropriate rules and regulations, after public hearings thereon, prohibiting or regulating employment of minors in any work, trade or occupation found to be dangerous or injurious to the life, health, safety, morals or welfare of minors under the age of eighteen (18) years: Provided, That no child under the age of eighteen (18) shall be employed in any of the occupations declared by the United States secretary of labor to be within the hazardous occupation regulations issued pursuant to the child labor provisions of the fair labor standards act on July 1, 1973.
History: L. 1917, ch. 227, § 2; R.S. 1923, 38-602; L. 1943, ch. 178, § 1; L. 1973, ch. 183, § 2; July 1.
Source or prior law:
L. 1883, ch. 117, § 17; L. 1909, ch. 65, § 2.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"For Love or Money: The Kansas Supreme Court's Problematic Acceptance of the 'Best Interests of the Child' Standard in an Intestate Claim [Reese v. Muret, 150 P.3d 309 (Kan. 2007)]," Angela Chesney Herrington, 47 W.L.J. 177 (2007).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Right of action for damages; meaning of "dangerous occupation." Casteel v. Brick Co., 83 Kan. 533, 534, 112 P. 145.
2. Act prohibits employment at any place in any occupation which is dangerous; applicable to farm labor, when; construed and history of act discussed. Kronvall v. Garvey, 148 Kan. 802, 804, 805, 807, 84 P.2d 858.
3. Trial court's finding occupation not "dangerous" conclusive on appeal. Dressler v. Dressler, 167 Kan. 749, 751, 753, 208 P.2d 271.
4. Minor's employment contract valid; within workmen's compensation act. Neville, Administratrix v. Wichita Eagle, 179 Kan. 197, 202, 294 P.2d 248.
5. Contributory negligence and assumption of risk not valid defenses to action based solely on violation of section. Frazey v. Hoar, 208 Kan. 519, 520, 522, 492 P.2d 1316.