Chicago Drop Forge & Foundry Co. v. Van Dam

• Citation: 36 N.E. 1024,149 Ill. 337
• Court: Supreme Court of Illinois
• Decision Date: 31 March 1894
• Parties: CHICAGO DROP FORGE & FOUNDRY CO. v. VAN DAM.

149 Ill. 337

36 N.E. 1024

CHICAGO DROP FORGE & FOUNDRY CO.

v.VAN DAM.¹

Supreme Court of Illinois.

March 31, 1894.

Appeal from appellate court, first district.

Action on the case by Cornelius Van Dam against the Chicago Drop Forge & Foundry Company. Plaintiff obtained judgment, which was affirmed by the appellate court. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Green, Willits & Robbins, for appellant.

S. P. Douthart, for appellee.

MAGRUDER, J.

This is an action to recover damages for a personal injury. Verdict and judgment in the trial court were in favor of the plaintiff (the appellee here), and said judgment has been affirmed by the appellate court, whence the case is brought before us by appeal. It is not claimed by appellant that any error was committed in the admission or rejection of evidence. No instructions were asked by the plaintiff, and only one instruction was asked by the defendant. That instruction was refused, and its refusal is the sole ground upon which the appellant relies for a reversal. By it the court was asked to instruct the jury ‘that, under the evidence in this case, the plaintiff cannot recover, and the verdict should be for the defendant.’ After a careful examination, we are unable to say that the evidence as given at the trial, with all the inferences which the jury could justifiably draw therefrom, was so insufficient to support a verdict for the plaintiff that the court would have been authorized in directing a verdict for the defendant. Simmons v. Railroad Co., 110 Ill. 340. On June 25, 1890, when the accident occurred, the plaintiff was a boy between 14 and 15 years of age, and was then employed by the appellant company in its drop forge and foundry works in Chicago, where he had been working from the time he was 12 years old. About 9 o'clock on the morning of that day, he was assigned to the task of operating one of a number of large iron hammers, propelled by steam, and weighing 900 pounds. The drop hammer moved up and down between guide shafts on either side, and, upon its descent, would strike upon an iron base, having an opening for the insertion of dyes for shaping iron. On the under side of the hammer was another opening, in which another dye for shaping is placed. The drop hammer, when raised above the base, was kept in place by what is called a ‘dog,’ L-shaped, working on a pivot in one side of the guide shaft, and catching on a bar that passes through the hammer. A spring lever, in the top of which the outer end of the dog is fastened, is attached to the base, and supplied with a treadle. When the operator steps on the treadle, the lever is pulled down, the dog is drawn from under the bar, and the hammer falls by its own weight, and strikes the required blow. Before the injury, appellee had been engaged at another hammer in shaping shears from heated iron, and used tongs to put the iron under the hammer. The evidence, however, tends to show that he was not familiar with the kind of work done at the machine, where he was injured by a fall of the drop hammer upon his hand, tearing it to pieces, and necessitating its amputation. On the morning in question, the foreman of the shop, who had charge of the work and of the men and boys engaged in it, ordered a boy older and more experienced than appellee to leave the hammer which caused the injury, and placed appellee there to operate it, so as to shape, from cold iron, buggy clips for the axles, to which the thills of buggies are attached. The boy removed from the work at that time was placing the clips under the hammer with his hands. The foreman spent a few moments in showing appellee how to shape the clips, placing two or three of them under the hammer with his hands, and stepping on the treadle, and taking out the clips, when they were shaped, with his hands. He then left appellee, and went to another part of the shop. After appellee had worked about 15 minutes, the dog slipped off, and let the hammer fall, although the treadle had not been pressed. At this time appellee escaped injury from the hammer thus suddenly and unexpectedly falling. A workman near by, seeing ‘the hammer slipping off the dog,’ came forward, and warned appellee not to put his hand under the hammer. Appellee then went to the foreman, and informed him that the dog was out of order and did not hold the hammer. The foreman ran the hammer up and down one or more times, and it did not fall. Appellee asked him to have the dog fixed, but was told to go on with the work, that they were in a hurry for the clips, which had to be shipped away, and that the dog would be fixed as soon as the balance of the clips had been shaped. The appellee then asked for a pair of tongs to handle the iron with, so that it would not be necessary for him to put his hands under the hammer. The foreman told him to keep on with his work, and he would get him a pair of tongs. The boy obeyed, and the foreman went away, but brought no tongs. In about 30 minutes the dog again...