Brotzki v. Wis. Granite Co.

Decision Date05 April 1910
Citation142 Wis. 380,125 N.W. 916
PartiesBROTZKI v. WISCONSIN GRANITE CO.
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Circuit Court, Green Lake County; Chester A. Fowler, Judge.

Action by Nicodem Brotzki against the Wisconsin Granite Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

The plaintiff brings this action to recover for personal injuries received on May 28, 1908, by an explosion of blasting powder in defendant's granite quarry.

The defendant owns and operates several granite stone quarries, and the injuries were received in one of these quarries at Berlin, Wis. There is a blaster for each of the three pits of this quarry, and the plaintiff was the blaster in one of them at the time of the injury.

Plaintiff was 36 years of age. About 15 years before he received his injuries, he had taken up his residence in Berlin. Thereafter he worked on a farm for about a year and then went to work for the defendant. At times he had done other work, but at the time he received his injuries he had worked for the defendant about 9 years altogether. He started work as a driller, and worked in other quarries as such, and had done a little blasting in one of these quarries. For one year prior to the time he was injured, the plaintiff had been the blaster in his pit, and for two years or more prior thereto he had been the blaster's helper. During this time, as helper, he had assisted in loading and firing blasts, and he thus became familiar with the way in which the blaster performed his work. When the blaster was away, he did the blasting.

Preparatory to the blasting proper, holes are drilled into the rock from 18 inches to 14 feet or more in depth. In drilling a deep hole, a kit of drills, 8 or 9 in number, are used. As the hole becomes deeper, each succeeding drill is a little smaller than the preceding one by about one-sixteenth of an inch, and a hole 12 or 14 feet deep will be about 3 inches in diameter at the top and about 1 1/2 inches at the bottom. The blaster examines the hole which has been drilled, using a steel rod about half an inch thick and of a length depending on the depth of the hole. One end of this rod is bent into a ring; the other end is flattened and notched on the end. If the blaster finds water in the hole, he removes it with a pump, if necessary. If only a small quantity is in the hole, he removes it by means of a rag which is put through the ring at one end of the steel rod and acts as a mop when the rod is thrust into the hole. When the hole has been dried, the blaster pours a handful or two of sand into the hole to absorb any water remaining at the bottom and to keep the powder dry when poured into the hole. If several charges are exploded in the same hole, the layer of sand, poured into the hole by the blaster, is designed to cover any smoldering damp powder, which may be left in the hole, and thus prevent the premature explosion of a subsequent charge. The notched end of the steel rod is used to remove projections or irregularities existing in the hole or which may be caused by the discharge of a blast.

The blaster then inserts a measuring rod, which rests upon the sand at the bottom of the hole; a chalk mark is made upon the rod at the surface level; and the top end of the rod is held in the hand of the blaster while powder is poured into the hole with the free hand. As the powder runs into the hole, the blaster gradually lifts the rod and moves it about, thus determining whether the powder is resting on the bottom of the hole and rising therein, or whether it is running away through crevices, and also ascertaining, from the rising chalk mark on the rod above the surface, the height of the powder in the hole. When sufficient powder has been placed in the hole, the blaster inserts an exploder. The exploder, or loaded cartridge, is about one-quarter of an inch in diameter and a little more than an inch long. Two wires are connected with the exploder, and these are connected with the wires of an exploding battery. The exploder is placed in the notched end of the measuring rod and held in place by the blaster keeping taut the two wires, one on either side of the measuring rod. The rod is then thrust down the hole, and the exploder thus placed upon the surface of the powder. After the exploder is in its proper position in the hole, sufficient powder is poured into the hole to cover the exploder. Sand and dirt are then run and packed into the hole, and the blaster and his helper then go to the battery, which is stationed at a safe distance from the hole, turn on the electric current, and the explosion results. The loading and exploding are repeated until the rock is dislodged or broken loose. It is the duty of the helper to stand by and hand the blaster the tools and materials as needed.

The plaintiff, as stated, had worked in the quarry of the defendant for about nine years. He had worked as blaster for the year immediately preceding the time he received his injuries and for two years theretofore as helper to the blaster. As such helper, he had observed the blaster at work and had become familiar with the blaster's way of performing his work. He, as helper, handed to the blaster the steel rod for gauging, probing, and smoothing the hole, and the powder and the exploder, as called for, and, when told so to do, turned on the current at the battery, or lighted the fuse, when the blast was so exploded. The blasting was usually done during the noon hour or after the other workmen had quit work in the quarry, and when the blaster and his helper were alone. The helper received no instructions as to the process, except such as he received and learned by doing the work and from observation. He was given no specific warning as to the dangers incident to blasting and knew of them only as his experience, knowledge, and observation informed him. The superintendent requested the plaintiff to take charge of the blasting when the blaster, with whom he had been working as helper, quit work, and, upon plaintiff expressing doubt of his fitness to handle the work, he was assured by the superintendent that he knew all about the work and that the knowledge he had obtained from his experience and observation of the former blaster qualified him to do the work all right. In undertaking the work, the plaintiff did the work as it had been done by the former blaster and he used the same tools.

Plaintiff was injured shortly after 6 o'clock in the evening. The hole, at which he was working, was about 12 feet, 8 inches deep, a trifle slanting. He had pumped the water out of the hole and discharged a blast. The charge blew out, and no rock was loosened so that it could be used for quarrying purposes, and the plaintiff went back to the hole to recharge it. He put the steel rod down into the hole to probe it, and, on withdrawing it, found that it was nice and dry. He threw a handful or two of sand into the hole and then took from his helper a cup of powder to pour into the hole. He held the steel gauge rod lightly in one hand, resting it upon the powder in the hole. He poured about three-quarters of the powder into the hole; the helper standing back of him ready with the exploder. While thus gauging the charge, the plaintiff felt the rod...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Haverland v. Potlatch Lumber Co.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 29 Julio 1921
    ... ... Washington Pulley etc. Co. , 61 ... Wash. 8, 111 P. 888, 45 L. R. A., N. S., 658; Brotzki v ... Wisconsin Granite Co., 142 Wis. 380, 125 N.W. 916, 27 L ... R. A., N. S., 982; Roberts v ... ...
  • Hercules Powder Co. v. Williamson
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 25 Octubre 1926
    ... ... the danger of flying particles or pieces cast up by such ... explosions. Brotzki v. Wisconsin Granite Co. (Wis.), ... 125 N.W. 916; King v. Morgan, 49 C. C. A. 507, 109 ... F ... ...
  • Van Dinter v. Worden-Allen Co.
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • 12 Diciembre 1912
    ...350, 119 N. W. 289, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 296;Ladwig v. Jefferson Ice Co., 141 Wis. 191, 124 N. W. 407;Brotzki v. Wisconsin Granite Co., 142 Wis. 380, 125 N. W. 916, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 982;Brown v. Conners, 149 Wis. 403, 135 N. W. 857. [4] That the answers to questions 5, 6, and 9 are not in......
  • Solleim v. Norbeck & Nicholson Co.
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • 18 Mayo 1914
    ...which he was exposed is always a circumstance the jury have a right to take into consideration in such cases. Brotski v. Wis. Granite Co., 142 Wis. 380, 125 N. W. 916, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 982, and note; King v. Morgan, 109 Fed. 446, 48 C. C. A. 507;O'Brien v. Buffalo Furnace Co., 183 N. Y. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT