Atchison, T. & S.F.R. Co. v. Howard

• Decision Date: 08 February 1892
• Citation: 49 F. 206
• Parties: ATCHISON, T. & S.F.R. CO. v. HOWARD.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

49 F. 206

ATCHISON, T. & S.F.R. CO. v. HOWARD.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

February 8, 1892

Charles E. Gust, for plaintiff in error.

Before CALDWELL, Circuit Judge, and SHIRAS and THAYER, District Judges.

THAYER District Judge.

This is a suit for personal injuries which the defendant in error sustained in March, 1890, while in the service of the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad Company as a locomotive fireman. On the trial in the circuit court it appeared that a flue-pocket was blown out of the boiler of the locomotive on which the defendant in error was employed, and that he was very severely scalded by hot steam which escaped from the boiler. A 'flue-pocket,' so termed, is a short flue which extends into the boiler for about six or eight inches behind the flue-sheet, and is closed at the inner end. Such 'blind-flues,' or 'flue-pockets,' as they are generally called, are located near the bottom of the flue-sheet, and open into the fire-box. They are so attached to the flue-sheet that they may be taken out or withdrawn when it becomes necessary to remove sediment or incrustations that have collected on the bottom of the boiler. The usual method of attaching flue- pockets to the flue-sheet of a boiler, so that they cannot be blow out, is to expand the flue on the inside next to the flue-sheet, thus forming a shoulder which abuts against the sheet. The locomotive on which the defendant in error was employed when injured was an old one, but it had been thoroughly repaired and put in order about a year prior to the accident.

In the course of the trial in the circuit court the defendant in error called a witness by the name of Sturdy, who was the boiler-maker who had repaired the boiler immediately after the flue-pocket in question was blown out. This witness testified, in substance, that while making such repairs he discovered that the flue-pocket had been put in originally in a faulty manner, by reason of its not having been expanded enough to give it a sufficient shoulder to prevent it from being blown out. On his cross-examination, however, he was confronted with a letter written by him to his superior officer, shortly after the date of said repairs, in which he had reported that 'the right cause of the flue-pocket being blown out was unknown, unless it was due to a sudden jar against the flue-sheet and a heavy pressure of steam that the flue-pocket was good, and had been put back in the boiler. ' It is stated in the bill of exceptions that 'Sturdy was the only witness who assumed to know how the flue-pocket had been originally put in. ' It is further said in the bill that there was 'some testimony * * * tending to show that the blowing out of the pocket might have been caused by throwing heavy lumps of coal into the fire-box;' and that 'the engineer testified that the defendant in error had thrown some coal into the fire-box shortly before the accident, but that he did not notice in what manner it was done;' also 'that several large lumps of unburned coal were found in the fire-box after the flue-pocket was blown out. ' The foregoing is...