Brendel v. Union Electric Light & Power Co.

• Decision Date: 08 June 1923
• Docket Number: No. 22021.,22021.
• Citation: 252 S.W. 635
• Parties: BRENDEL v. UNION ELECTRIC LIGHT POWER CO.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

252 S.W. 635

BRENDEL v. UNION ELECTRIC LIGHT POWER CO.

No. 22021.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

June 8, 1923.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Moser, Hartmann, judge.

Action by Fred Brendel against the Union Electric Light & Power Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded for other trial.

Chas. M. Hay and Ralph T. Finley, both of St. Louis, for appellant.

Jourdan, Rassieur & Pierce, of St. Louisa for respondent.

SMALL, C.

I. Appeal from the circuit court of the city of St. Louis. Suit for personal injury by plaintiff, a foreman in charge of a heating plant of defendant, caused by an explosion of the hot water heater in said plant. The jury found a verdict, and judgment was rendered thereon, for the defendant, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court.

The charge of negligence in the petition was that "defendant had negligently and carelessly constructed * * * the hot water heater so that * * * the said hot water heater was not provided with sufficient and adequate equipment for the put,' pose of letting off and relieving the surplus and excess steam and pressure that would, accumulate in the said hot water heater, and, * * * the said hot water heater, as a, direct result of the negligence of the defend", ant, as aforesaid, in not providing adequate means of escape for the excess of steam and pressure, exploded, and plaintiff was, because and as a result of said explosion, injured" by being struck with pieces of iron upon the left leg, and burned and scalded with steam and hot water.

The answer contained: (1) General denial (2) assumption of risk; (3) contributory negligence in failing to report unsafe condition; if any, of heater, so defendant could remedy same; (4) contributory negligence in hiring incompetent engineer to operate said plant and heater, and in failing to properly instruct him how to operate it with safety. The reply put the affirmative allegations of the answer in issue.

The plaintiff's evidence tended to show: That the defendant company owned and operated about 8 or 10 heating plants located in different office buildings in the business district in St. Louis, for the purpose of supplying such buildings with steam heat and hot water. The boilers used were high-pressure boilers, carrying 150 pounds to the square inch. The hot water was used by the tenants in the building, and also by the janitors. The plaintiff was foreman of said plants, and went from one to the other during the daytime, inspecting and supervising their operation by the engineers in immediate charge thereof.

The plant where the water heater exploded and injured plaintiff was located in the Federal Reserve Bank Building. This heater was an iron box about Oh feet long and 1½ feet square; it contained a coiled pipe through which cold water ran from the water system of the building. There was a pipe connected with this iron box which admitted steam from the boilers. The steam surrounded the cold water coils, and thereby heated the water. The iron box was not constructed to withstand more than 15 pounds pressure, and in order to heat the coils properly it was not necessary to have more than 4 or 5 pounds of steam pressure in the box. There was a reducing valve in the steam pipe leading from the boilers to the heater, which could be set, theoretically, at least, so as to prevent more than 4 or 5 pounds pressure accumulating in the heater. But, as a matter of fact, this valve was not reliable, in that sometimes it would leak by reason of scales forming on it from impurities in the steam, which prevented it from closing down and operating perfectly, and, consequently, there was attached to the heater a sort of safety valve, composed of a loop of pipe and hose through which the steam would escape into the atmosphere, in case the steam pressure became excessive in the water heater, that is, over 4 or 5 pounds to the square inch. Several months before the accident to plaintiff the Public Service Commission had required defendant to install condensation meters and traps in Its heating plants. The installation thereof was made by special mechanics employed for the purpose, under the immediate charge and supervision of Klein, the general superintendent of the defendant. The plaintiff had nothing to do with such installation. The meter, but not the traps, had been installed in August, and at that time the looped pipe which relieved excessive pressure was taken off, and a straight pipe, running into a sewer-drain In the floor of the basement, was substituted in its stead. This also permitted any excessive pressure of steam to escape from the water heater. On the morning of the day plaintiff was injured this straight pipe was removed, and the "trap" was installed, which prevented any steam escaping from the heater, and no outlet was provided to relieve an excessive pressure of steam therein. Plaintiff had several times previously warned Klein of the necessity of providing such an outlet when the changes ordered by the Public Utilities Commission were made; that the reducing valve could not be depended upon. But Klein told the plaintiff, in effect, not to worry himself; that he (Klein) was doing that, and would take care of the matter; that he was the responsible man.

Plaintiff did not get to the Federal Reserve Bank Building the day of his Injury until between 5 and half past 5 in the afternoon, and knew nothing of the installation of the trap without provision for relieving excessive pressure in the heater. He walked down the steps, passed the hot water heater, which was near the head of the steps, and went into the engine room with some reports he had with him, laid them out on the desk, and showed Boisemenue, the engineer in charge of the operation of the plant, what he was supposed to do, and what he was to tell the after watch and the morning watch what they were to do. There were three shifts of men in charge of the plant every 24 hours. He then started out of the engine room, and went up the steps, where he entered, and, as he passed the heater, it exploded, and the end of the heater next to him was broken into fragments, and the pieces of iron, with the hot water and steam, struck him on the left leg, and enveloped him in a cloud of steam. He shouted to the engineer, and together they shut off the valve in the pipe that permitted the steam to pass from the boilers into the heater. Plaintiff's left leg was severely bruised and scalded, and he suffered a serious injury.

On cross-examination plaintiff stated: That he employed Boisemenue as engineer to take charge of that plant. That he was a licensed engineer, and had been working before that for some packing company. That he did not ask him whether he knew anything about hot Water heaters. That he would consider that a foolish question to ask any engineer, and he would not ask an engineer that question. He asked Boisemenue whether he was a member of the union, and he said he was, but that this would not prevent him from giving his best services to the company. That Boisemenue then signed an application for membership in the E. M. B. A. (Employees' Mutual Benefit Association) and that plaintiff turned it in to the company's headquarters, and told Klein, that "here was Mr. Sam Boisemenue's application; that I wanted to hire him as an engineer down at the Federal Reserve Building, and he told me all right." That he then hired Boisemenue,' and before the accident gave him instructions about running the plant, including the water heater. "I told him that the reducing valve on the water heater was not dependable. I also told him, that the steam gage on there was not sure, positive, and for him to use this here throttle valve on this here steam pipe." By throttle valve he meant the reducing valve that let the steam from the boiler into the heater. That "to use it and just barely crack it," so as to let the steam just go through, and that the loop would take care of it, and the atmospheric valve would be set for so many pounds pressure. After the loop was taken off he gave Boisemenue no further instructions. He could see it was taken off. But he did tell Boisemenue, if the steam starts shooting out there, to close It off, and only let the condensation come through. He told him that the day the loop was taken off. That was before the trap was put in. He said nothing more to Boisemenue; he had no occasion to. He just came in there that evening "and got blowed up"; didn't have time to tell him anything." The meters were put in some time in August. They did not have enough traps to put them in at that time. That the trap in the Federal Bank Building was installed on the day he got hurt, before he got there that day. As long as the loop was there, and had the atmospheric opening, there was no danger, and when that pipe was turned down and it emptied on the floor in the sewer drain there was not any danger. The danger began when the trap was put in there, and he never saw the trap there before the day he was hurt. He told Klein, when they got ready to put in that trap, that they must positively make it safe; they must have an atmospheric opening in it. That they had trouble with these same reducing valves at other places, and had safety valves on them.

Plaintiff was also asked the following question on cross-examination:

"Mr. Goodwin: Well, isn't it a fact, Mr. Brendel, that while you were employed by the 'Union Electric Company you made a practice of loaning money at rates of interest as high as 40 per cent. per month to the employees under you?

"Mr. Hay: I object to that for two reasons: In the first place, it is a collateral inquiry, that leads us into an examination which we have no 'objections to going into, except on the ground that it is collateral; and, secondly, that the invitation in all these questions is absolutely untrue.

"The Court: Well, I will let him answer."

To which ruling of the court plaintiff...