Marquardt v. Ball Engine Co.

• Citation: 122 F. 374
• Decision Date: 04 April 1903
• Docket Number: 1,116.
• Parties: MARQUARDT v. BALL ENGINE CO.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)

122 F. 374

MARQUARDT v. BALL ENGINE CO.

No. 1,116.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

April 4, 1903

This action was brought to recover for wrongfully causing the death of Gustav Marquardt, an assistant engineer of the Perry-Payne Company. This company was the owner of an office building in the city of Cleveland, Ohio. It had occasion to use an engine in the operation of its electric plant and otherwise, and purchased it from the Ball Engine Company, a manufacturer of steam engines at Erie, Pa. In the specifications for the engine, it was provided that a telescopic valve should be used. The defendant put in (claiming greater usefulness and efficiency for it) a valve known as a 'prismatic valve.' When the engine was set up, in January, 1899, an expert of the defendant company was present, and for about one week remained with the engine, assisting in operating and adjusting it. For several days after the expert of the defendant company left, the engine was operated under the supervision of the engineer of the Perry-Payne Company. On the 21st of January, 1899, the fly wheel attached to the engine suddenly burst, flying in pieces, one of which struck and fatally injured Marquardt, the assistant engineer, then employed in the discharge of his duties about the engine. The plaintiff's testimony tended to show that the valve furnished by the defendant was, owing to its shape and construction, liable to bind and to prevent the smooth working of the engine. The engine was furnished with what is known as an 'inertia governor.' This was connected by a 'rocker' and valve rod with the valve. Defects are charged in the fly wheel, in having a faulty spoke containing a sand hole or blow hole which had been filled with soft metal, dressed down, and painted so as to conceal it from view; that the tension spring attached to the governor was held by a bolt which was three-quarters broken that when the engine was set up, to overcome slight noises in its operation, a hold had been drilled in the steadying lug or rest of the governor which bears against the outer hub of the fly wheel, and filled with brass to such an extent that resting against the iron hub end without lubrication, the friction of the brass against the iron hub end placed an undue strain on the tension spring of the governor, held by the defective bolt. The plaintiff gave evidence tending to show that the valve, instead of working freely, had a binding tendency due to its construction and uneven expansion when heated, and was consequently unsafe to use. In the opinion of experts called by the plaintiff, the destruction of the fly wheel was caused by the valve sticking or binding, causing a pulling force to be exerted by the attaching rods upon the governor, thus exerting an undue strain upon the tension spring and breaking the defective bolt. When the spring was broken, the governor would strike upon the stops upon the rim of the fly wheel, breaking it while still being carried by the momentum of the 285 revolutions per minute at which it was going. At the conclusion of the plaintiff's testimony, the court, upon motion of the defendant, directed a verdict in its favor.

George O. Willet, for plaintiff in error

E. K. Wilcox, for defendant in error.

Before LURTON, DAY, and SEVERENS, Circuit Judges.

DAY Circuit Judge, after the foregoing statement, .

A perusal of the record makes it evident that the plaintiff's case could only have been submitted to the jury upon the theory that an improperly constructed valve caused the breaking of the fly wheel, and the consequent injury and death of Marquardt. Neither the defective bolt to the tension spring, the brass filling creating friction with the hub end, nor the defective spoke, could have caused the injury, without the primary cause attributed to the bad working of the valve. If plaintiff's case was made out at all, it was upon the theory that the valve was the source of the mischief. Under ordinary circumstances, there is nothing to show that the bolt would not have held the tension spring or that the filling or defective spoke could have resulted in any harm. The binding valve was the probable source of trouble, upon the plaintiff's evidence. It exerted the pulling force that caused the spring to break, permitting the governor to pound upon the rim of the fly wheel. The real question in the case is reduced to one of liability of the defendant for furnishing to the Perry-Payne Company, the employer of Marquardt, an engine, for use in its business in which the deceased was employed, equipped with the valve furnished by the defendant. There is no claim that the act was willful or intended to injure. It is equally true that the defendant stood in no contractual...