Brooks v. Kinsley Iron & MaCh. Co.

• Decision Date: 21 May 1909
• Citation: 88 N.E. 771,202 Mass. 228
• Parties: BROOKS v. KINSLEY IRON & MACHINE CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

202 Mass. 228

88 N.E. 771

BROOKS v. KINSLEY IRON & MACHINE CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Norfolk.

May 21, 1909

COUNSEL

Wm. B. Sprout, Gerald A. Healy, and Wm. Reed Bigelow, for plaintiff.

Jas. E Cotter and Conrad Reno, for defendant.

OPINION

SHELDON J.

The fundamental question is whether there was evidence which would have warranted the jury in finding that the explosion by which the plaintiff was injured was due to an accumulation of rust or moisture in the pig bed into which the plaintiff was pouring molten iron, and that such accumulation was due to the negligence of the defendant or of some one for whose negligence the defendant was responsible. There was ample evidence that such an accumulation in the pig bed might cause an explosion like what did occur. There was also evidence that for many years, up to a short time before the happening of this explosion, care had been taken to keep the beds free from rust or moisture by taking out the iron each morning placing them upside down upon two iron rails until they were needed for use, and rubbing any spot of rust with a black oil which was provided for that purpose, but that for a few weeks or months before the explosion this practice had been abandoned; that the case of these beds had been intrusted to a new and inexperienced employé, to whom no instructions were given, and who formed the habit of taking out the iron each morning and putting the beds upon the bare ground without any other attention. He was never, in any way, according to the evidence put in by the plaintiff, instructed to look for rust or moisture in them, or to take any precautions against its gathering. This change of practice was followed by an increased number of small but harmless explosions; and there was evidence that such an accumulation of rust or moisture as would create danger of a violent explosion, while it was not obvious to the molder, whose duty it would be to pour molten iron into the bed, could readily be discovered by proper inspection made beforehand. It also could be found that the plaintiff and the other molders were not charged with the duty of making such inspection, but were expected to use the beds as they found them, and that they had a right to rely upon proper care having been taken to keep them free from rust or moisture.

On the other hand there was no direct evidence of the presence of rust or moisture in the bed, at or before the time of the explosion. The plaintiff testified that molten iron would fly in small particles, if it struck any hard substance like the ground, or still worse, upon a board, although this would not do more than burn the clothing; that an explosion was liable to occur at any time if a vat or pig bed was not properly kept. Other witnesses testified to the same effect. But there was no evidence that such an explosion as was testified to could have been produced from any other cause than an accumulation of rust of moisture. Accordingly, we are of opinion that the jury might have found that the explosion was due to such an accumulation.

But it is objected that this is not enough. If the existing state of affairs, however dangerous, might, according to the ordinary experience of mankind, have been due to other causes than negligence for which the defendant was responsible, then it was for the plaintiff to exclude the operation of those causes by the greater weight of evidence. Ryan v. Fall River Iron Works Co., 200 Mass. 188, 192, 86 N.E. 310; Childs v. American Express Co., 197 Mass. 337, 339 84 N.E. 128; Saxe v. Walworth Mfg. Co., 191 Mass. 338, 341, 77 N.E. 883, 114 Am. St. Rep. 613; Hofnauer v. R. H. White Co., 186 Mass. 47, 49, 70 N.E. 1038. But these beds might be found to be a part of the defendant's ways, works and machinery. Prendible v. Connecticut River Mfg. Co., 160 Mass. 131, 35 N.E. 675; Donahue v. Buck, 197 Mass. 550, 83 N.E. 1090. And the case at bar differs from those above referred to and similar cases, in that here there was positive evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant or its superintendent in discontinuing the precautions which had been taken to guard against this very danger, and of negligence which naturally would result in just such a dangerous condition of the beds as was claimed to exist. Where the jury have a right to find such actual negligence, followed by the existence of the very danger which might have been expected to arise therefrom, it cannot be said as matter of law that the plaintiff in bound to go further and to exclude the operation of other possible causes to which conceivably the danger might have been due, instead of having been due to the actual negligence which has been shown. We are not aware of any decision which has gone to that length. There was here more than a mere transitory risk arising from a temporary dampness, to be dried or wiped out by the man who was in charge of them, as in Whittaker v. Bent, 167 Mass. 588, 46 N.E. 121. These were permanent appliances; and the jury might find that the defendant had assumed the duty of inspecting them and keeping them dry and free from rust, and...