Dunne v. Jersey City Galvanizing Co.

• Decision Date: 19 November 1906
• Citation: 73 N.J.L. 586,64 A. 1076
• Parties: DUNNE v. JERSEY CITY GALVANIZING CO.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

64 A. 1076

73 N.J.L. 586

DUNNE

v. JERSEY CITY GALVANIZING CO.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Nov. 19, 1906.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error to Circuit Court, Hudson County.

Action by Michael Dunne against the Jersey City Galvanizing Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Robert L. Lawrence, for plaintiff in error. McEwan & McEwan, for defendant in error.

FORT, J. The plaintiff was a servant of the defendant. He was employed as a laborer to clean castings, load trucks, and help all around the shop wherever he was sent. The business of the defendant was galvanizing leaders, stovepipe, sheet iron piping, fittings, and the like. For this purpose there were in the factory two tanks or kettles, constructed of sheet iron, encased in brick, and about 20 feet in length and 4 feet in width and 3 feet in depth. These tanks were, when in use, filled with a molten metal or liquid, and the pipes and fittings were given a bath in the tanks to galvanize them. The plaintiff was not employed to work at the tanks, or to do galvanizing. It was proven that the putting of water or wet fittings in these tanks would cause the metal to explode or spurt, and thus fly out of the tank a distance of from 4 to 10 feet, and even 15, at times. It also appeared that when the workmen at the tanks were galvanizing pipes, they placed on the top edge of the tanks, a sheet iron casing, called in the proof "a target," to prevent the flying particles from injuring any one. These targets were furnished by the master for that purpose. It was also in proof that, when they were galvanizing short pieces, these targets were not used, in fact, could not be used, as the pieces were placed along the top of the tanks and put into the liquid with tongs. No protection was therefore provided while galvanizing short work. The plaintiff had worked in factories similar to this before, and was familiar, by observation only, with the fact that, if wet substances were placed in the molten metal in the tanks the metal would spurt and fly out But the proof in this case was that he had never seen the metal fly out in this factory, and that he was not informed that any damp parts were placed in the tank, he supposing that all the parts that were galvanized were dry, having seen none used in this shop except such as came from the drying room. The plaintiff had not worked within a distance nearer than 40 feet of the tanks, except for about 20 minutes on the Saturday before he was injured, when he was, for that short time, wheeling iron pieces to the tank to be given the galvanizing bath. On the following Monday he was again put at the same work, and there was a spurt from the tank when he wheeled the first load, and he was hit in the eye and lost the sight of it. He was about 10 feet from the tank at the time. The dangers of the work were not explained to the plaintiff, nor was he given any warning of the probable danger of explosions from the use of wet metal while working around the tanks. He was not told, and there was nothing to indicate, that damp metal was put in the tanks. He had never seen, while working there for two weeks, any explosion or spurting of the metal from the tanks. Under the proof we think it was a question for the jury whether the risk of flying metal, caused by immersing iron pieces which were wet, was one of the risks incident to the employment, or whether, under the proof, the probable injury from such...