Corning Steel Co. v. Pohlplotz

• Decision Date: 03 June 1902
• Parties: CORNING STEEL CO. v. POHLPLOTZ.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

29 Ind.App. 250

64 N.E. 476

CORNING STEEL CO.

v.POHLPLOTZ.

Appellate Court of Indiana, Division No. 1.

June 3, 1902.

Appeal from superior court, Lake county.

Action by Leo Pohlplotz against the Corning Steel Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Chas. F. Griffin and C. E. Heckler, for appellant. B. Borders, L. Becker, and Agnew & Kelly, for appellee.

ROBINSON, J.

Suit for personal injuries. Complaint in two paragraphs, to which demurrers were overruled. Issues formed upon general denial, trial by jury, and verdict and judgment for appellee.

The first paragraph of the complaint avers that appellant is a corporation; that appellee is a minor 18 years of age, and on the 1st day of August, 1899, was employed by the appellant to work in its mills, and on the same day was put to work inspecting and handling steel plates, and kept at such work until August 17, 1899; that when appellee began work for appellant he had had no experience in or about a steel mill, and knew nothing whatever of the work or the danger of such a place, and that, when he began work, appellant, among other instructions given him, directed that at any time any of the machinery or appliances became broken or misplaced, and it became necessary to make repairs, he should quit his work, and go to the place where such repairs were being made, and watch the repair thereof, to the end that he might become familiar with the repairing and operation of such machinery; that on the 17th day of August a certain cogwheel became loosened and slipped from its place, and, in obedience to the directions before given him, appellee went to the place where the cogwheel was so misplaced; that the wheel was located over and above a pot of hot metal, and in such a place that, to replace it, it was necessary to stand upon the pot containing the hot metal, and drive the cogwheel into its place with a sledge hammer; that the appellant directed him to stand upon the edge of the pot, and with the sledge hammer drive the wheel back to its place; that the pot was filled with melted metal, used to coat the finished sheets of steel, but at the time gave no signs of its intense heat, and, from its appearance, no person could by the use of the eye ascertain its heat; that the pot was without any covering, but appellee had no experience or knowledge of such matters, and did not know the contents of the pot was so intensely hot, and, in obedience to the orders of appellant, he went upon the pot, and, standing upon the edge thereof,-a space of four inches in width,-he attempted to drive the wheel to its place; that, after he had struck a few blows with the hammer, he struck at and missed the wheel, and the hammer, which weighed 20 pounds, swung around with such force as to throw him from the narrow place where he was standing, and he fell with his right hand and arm in the pot of hot metal, and was burned and scalded to such an extent as to permanently disable him. He further avers that appellant well knew the contents of the pot were intensely hot, and that the position where appellee was ordered to go was extremely dangerous, and that the missing of a blow or the slightest turning of the hammer would throw appellee down and into the pot of metal, and that appellant also knew that appellee was a minor 18 years of age, and was wholly without experience, and, knowing all these things, appellant carelessly and negligently failed to inform appellee of the danger, or to caution him as to the same. It is further averred that the pot might have been covered, with the loss of only a few minutes' time, so as to make it perfectly safe, as appellant well knew. He further avers that he was not guilty of any fault or neglect, and that his injuries were caused directly and wholly by the neglect and carelessness of appellant as above set out. Appellee avers in this paragraph that the wheel was over and above a vat of melted metal used to coat finished sheets of steel, and, to replace the wheel, it was necessary to stand upon the vat containing the metal. He does not aver in direct terms that he did not know the metal was hot, but avers that at the time it gave no signs of its intense heat, and from its appearance a person could not by the use of the eye ascertain its heat, and that he did not know its contents were so intensely hot. Nor is it averred that he was ignorant of the danger of attempting to stand where he did to do the work he was attempting to do. The only danger incident to the work was the danger of being burned from the hot metal, and there is no express averment in this paragraph that he was ignorant of that danger. It is averred that when he began work he was inexperienced about a steel mill, and was a minor 18 years of age. The general rule is that minors are held to the same risks of the employment in which they are engaged, and which are open and obvious to them, as adults. Railroad Co. v. Trimble, 8 Ind. App. 333, 35 N. E. 716;Levey v. Bigelow, 6 Ind. App. 677, 34 N. E. 128, and cases there cited. The position appellee assumed was a hazardous one, and it must be held, from the averments of this paragraph, that the danger was as well known to him as to any one.

The second paragraph contains substantially the same averments, and contains additional averments as to the location of the pot or vat with reference to the place where appellee worked; that a piece of the wheel was broken off when struck, causing the hammer to swing around and...