Carr v. Am. Locomotive Co.

• Decision Date: 25 May 1904
• Parties: CARR v. AMERICAN LOCOMOTIVE CO.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

58 A. 678

26 R.I. 180

CARR

v. AMERICAN LOCOMOTIVE CO.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

May 25, 1904.

Action by Peter P. Carr, prochein ami, against the American Locomotive Company. Defendant petitions for a new trial. Granted.

Argued before STINESS, C. J., and TILLINGHAST and DOUGLAS, JJ.

John W. Hogan and Philip S. Knauer, for plaintiff.

William A. Morgan and Ratcliffe G. E. Hicks, for defendant.

DOUGLAS, J. This is an action on the case for damages sustained by the plaintiff through the alleged negligence of the defendant corporation. The facts, as appears from the statement of evidence, are as follows:

On the 28th day of June, 1902, the plaintiff, who was then 18 years of age, was operating an oil-burning rivet heater in the defendant's works in Providence. He had been in the employ of the defendant nearly a year, and was familiar with the operation of the heater. The rivet heater was a cylindrical furnace about 3 feet 6 inches in diameter and about 2 feet from top to bottom, set with its plane surfaces parallel to the floor, and stood on iron legs which were about 3 feet long. There was an opening in the side of the furnace about 8 inches by 12 inches, for the purpose of putting in and taking out rivets; and a short distance from this opening was another round opening about 1 1/2 inches or 2 inches in diameter, through which the oil spray was thrown from the burner into the furnace. Between the two openings in the furnace there was a guard plate about 12 inches by 16 inches, which stood out at right angles with the side of the furnace. The oil used in the heater was crude petroleum, and was supplied under pressure from a tank in the ground a long distance from the furnace. In order to use the oil in the furnace it was necessary to break the oil up into a spray. This was done by mixing it with air under pressure. The point of the burner through which the oil and air passed to the furnace was set about 1 1/2 inches or 2 inches from the round hole in the furnace. A pipe ran from the oil tank to the burner, and another pipe from an air compressor to the burner. In the pipe leading from the oil tank, and about 9 inches below the burner, was a valve called a "guard valve," which, when closed, shut off the supply of oil to the furnace entirely. In the pipe leading from the air compressor, and about 8 inches above the burner, was another valve, which, when closed, shut off the supply of air entirely. In that part of the burner which was furthest from the furnace, and in a line with the round opening into the furnace and the point of the burner, was a valve which was used for adjusting the supply of oil to the furnace while it was in operation. The air, when the furnace was in operation, passed down from the air valve to the burner and through a passage in the burner, separated from the oil passage, and mixed with the oil at a point Just inside the end of the burner, striking against the stream of oil in such a manner as to break it up into a spray, exactly as a liquid is projected in spray from an ordinary atomizer. The pressure per square inch on the oil was usually from 20 to 23 pounds, and never exceeded 40 pounds. The pressure on the air per square inch ranged from 40 pounds to 90 pounds. It required 8 1/2 turns of the stem of the middle valve to release it from the threads in the valve, after which it would be held more or less tightly by the packing in the stuffing-box. The stem originally had been provided with a wheel for convenience in opening and closing the valve, but this wheel, some time before the accident, had been replaced with a cross-bar, so that the stem with the cross-bar attached was shaped like the letter T, and the stem could be screwed entirely out of the valve without unscrewing any other part of the valve. Shortly after 7 o'clock on the morning of said 28th day of June the plaintiff testified that he started the fire in the furnace as usual, and while he was adjusting the flow of oil by means of the valve in the burner, the stem of this valve blew out, permitting the oil to spurt in an opposite direction from the furnace, and upon him. The oil on the plaintiff's clothing caught fire, and he was terribly burned. The plaintiff swore that at the time of starting up the fire the burner valve was closed, that three turns of the valve stem would supply all the oil needed, and that he was certain that he did not open the burner valve more than three turns of the valve stem.

The plaintiff alleges the breach of defendant's duty to provide safe machinery, appliances, and place to work, as follows: "Then and there unlawfully, negligently, and carelessly suffered and permitted its certain appliances, to wit, a tap or stop cock then and there upon and part of a certain feed pipe through which certain oil was fed or supplied to a certain rivet-heating apparatus then and there run, used, and operated by the plaintiff to become and be in a dangerous, improper, and unsafe condition, and perilous to the safety and health of the plaintiff, in that the same was of insufficient strength to bear and stand the usual and necessary strain thereon in using and working with the same, and in that the said feed pipe, and the said tap or stop cock provided for regulating and controlling the supply of oil therefrom were improperly, insecurely, and negligently fastened and joined together, and in that the same was worn, weak, and out of repair, and was likely to break and escape from its proper position in consequence thereof, and to permit said oil * * * to escape in consequence thereof, and thus become ignited, and strike the operator, and cause injury," etc. In short, the declaration alleges that: (1) The stop cock was of insufficient strength to bear the usual strain; (2) the feed pipe and the stop cock were improperly fastened together; (3) the stop cock was worn, weak, and out of repair, and likely to break and escape from its position. No evidence was introduced in support of the first proposition, except as it may be involved in the third. The second was based upon evidence that valves were in use in which the stem was so constructed that it could not be entirely withdrawn from the valve without unscrewing the packing box and taking the valve apart. This fact was shown to be no ground for attributing negligence to the defendant, because valves constructed like the one in question are in common and general use in gas furnaces, for a similar purpose, by prudent and careful manufacturers. Much evidence was introduced relating to the condition of the valve stem which regulated the flow of the oil. The plaintiff attempted to show that the thread upon it had been worn, and its holding power impaired, by long use, and particularly by the process of riveting upon the end of the stem the bar of iron which was affixed in place of the wheel which was originally upon it for a handle. Evidence was also introduced from which it might be inferred, and it was strenuously argued, that the accident was caused by an explosion of gas generated by the oil and collected in the pipe and burner. It was also intimated that the valve and stem had been tampered with before being produced in court as an exhibit.

The plaintiff's main reliance to the jury was the supposition that the engagement between the threads of the stem and the corresponding threads of the valve box was so slight that the expansion of the metal from the heat of the flame neutralized it completely, and destroyed the holding capacity of the screw threads so that, when an explosion occurred, the stem yielded to the force, and was expelled from the valve. The jury found the defendant corporation guilty as charged in the declaration, and assessed the plaintiff's damages at $18,000; and they further found, on the special issues presented to them, that the thread on the stem of the burner valve operated by the plaintiff at the time of the accident was not then in good working condition; that the thread in the body of the burner valve operated by the plaintiff at the time of the accident was not then in good working condition; that the valve stem produced in court as a part of the burner valve in question, and forming a part of defendant's Exhibit A, was the stem operated by the plaintiff at the time of the accident; that the burner and burner valve produced in court as part of defendant's Exhibit A were the burner and burner valve operated by the plaintiff at the time of the accident; and that the accident to the plaintiff was not due to the formation and explosion of gases in the pipe which supplied the furnace with oil.

The defendant now brings its petition for a new trial on the grounds: (1) That the general verdict and the first two special findings of the jury were against the evidence. (2) That the presiding justice erred in permitting the plaintiff to challenge one in every four jurors called, including those excused for cause. (3) That the presiding justice erred in the rejection of certain evidence offered by the defendant and in the admission of certain evidence for the plaintiff. (4) That the presiding justice allowed improper cross-examination of defendant's witnesses. (5) That the plaintiff's counsel misstated evidence in his arguments to the jury. (6) That the presiding justice erred in his instructions and refusals of special instructions to the jury.

The conclusions of the jury that the apparatus produced in court as defendant's Exhibit A includes the identical burner, valve, and stem which were operated by the plaintiff at the time of the accident, and that the accident was not caused by an explosion, are amply...