Casey-Hedges Co. v. Oliphant

• Decision Date: 04 January 1916
• Docket Number: 2657.
• Citation: Casey-Hedges Co. v. Oliphant, 228 F. 636 (6th Cir. 1916)
• Parties: CASEY-HEDGES CO. v. OLIPHANT.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

228 F. 636

CASEY-HEDGES CO. v. OLIPHANT.

No. 2657.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

January 4, 1916

J. B Sizer, of Chattanooga, Tenn., for plaintiff in error.

W. B Miller, of Chattanooga, Tenn., for defendant in error.

Before WARRINGTON and DENISON, Circuit Judges, and McCALL, District judge.

WARRINGTON Circuit Judge.

Oliphant recovered a verdict and judgment against the company for personal injuries suffered while in its employ.At the close of Oliphant's evidence, which was all that was offered the company moved that a verdict be directed in its favor.The motion was overruled, exception reserved, and the only assignment presented here is that 'the court erred in overruling the motion * * * to direct the jury to render a verdict for the defendant.'

1.Motion is made to dismiss the writ of error for the reason that the assignment is insufficient under rule 11(224 F vii, 137 C.C.A. vii).In the view we take of the case, the rights of Oliphant cannot be affected by either granting or denying his motion (Lenoir Car Works v. Trinkle, Adm'r,228 F. 634, . . . C.C.A. . . ., decided December 17, 1915); still, as the motion questions our right to considerthe case, it may not be inappropriate to say that the motion to direct was specific in statement of supporting reasons, and these were fully considered in the charge.This resulted in clearly defining the issues upon which the case was submitted to the jury.One of the issues in effect was whether there was evidence tending to show negligence on the part of the defendant which either caused or contributed to the plaintiff's injury.Where exception has been reserved, and error is assigned simply to the denial of such a motion, even where the indulge a presumption that an issue such as the one just stated was submitted to the jury.Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Womack,173 F. 752, 759, 97 C.C.A. 559.And where grounds are stated in the motion, as here, it would place a strained construction upon rule 11, and could serve no useful purpose, to require the grounds to be re-stated in the assignment.Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Bennett,181 F. 799, 800, 104 C.C.A. 309(C.C.A. 8th Cir.);Atchison, T. & S.F.R. Co. v. Meyers,76 F. 443, 447, 22 C.C.A. 268(C.C.A. 7th Cir.).See, also, Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Hartman,174 F. 801, 804, 98 C.C.A. 509(C.C.A. 8th Cir.).A motion to direct a verdict is after all simply a demurrer to the evidence, and where even one of the grounds stated or reasonably to be implied is good it is error to deny the motion.It is therefore vain to say that the present assignment does not sufficiently disclose the nature of the error relied on here; and so the motion to dismiss the writ of error must be overruled.

2.Oliphant received his injuries from an explosion, which occurred in a flask within the company's foundry, while he was pouring molten iron into the mold for casting pipe.The explosion was caused through contact of the hot iron with the cold iron, or the wet sand, or both, of what is known as the green sand core within the flask.After stating that the flask consists of a 'rectangular, box-like structure filled with damp sand,'counsel for the company we think correctly describe the method of such molding:

'A form is first put into the flasks to make the impression of the exterior surface of the pipe; then the form is taken out and a core, consisting of a hollow metal pipe, also covered with damp sand, is put into the flask.The diameter of the core being less than that of the form with which the first impression was made, there is a hollow space left between the outside of the core and the sand in the flask; and into this space the melted iron is poured through the 'gates' or openings left in the sand for that purpose, and thus the pipe is formed around the core or arbor.'

It will thus be seen that, while the molten iron comes into contact with the entire damp sand coating of the core, it cannot do so with any part of the interior metal pipe unless the coating is imperfect; and it is quite plain that neither the condition of the sand nor the extent of the coating is visible to a person engaged in pouring hot iron through one of the gates.Oliphant had nothing to do with preparing the green sand core or any part of the contents of the flask.It was necessary that four persons should unite in pouring melted iron from hand ladles through the gates; and after everything had been prepared for the operation Oliphant was called from another part of the foundry to assist in the pouring.

The evidence tends to show that the operation is dangerous, when the sand coating of the core is either too damp or the interior metal pipe is not fully and adequately covered; that for some two years previous to the injuries plaintiff was working as a molder where dry sand cores, though not where green sand cores, were used; and that there is a marked difference between the dangers attending these two kinds of molding.One way in which this difference is described is that the danger incident to green sand core molding is from 'explosion,' while that attending dry sand core molding is from a 'blow'; the first being sudden while the other is gradual.The dry sand core is composed of a mixture of sand and other materials, though rarely of iron within the mixture; and before the dry core is used it is placed in an oven and baked.When the molten iron is poured into the gates gas forms and escapes in each process through vents, but the difference between the sudden and violent exit of the gas generated in the use of the wet core and its...