Dyer v. Union Iron Works

• Decision Date: 18 August 1911
• Citation: 117 P. 387,64 Wash. 577
• Parties: DYER v. UNION IRON WORKS.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

117 P. 387

64 Wash. 577

DYER v. UNION IRON WORKS.

Supreme Court of Washington

August 18, 1911

Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; Wm. A. Huneke Judge.

Action by Clarence Ray Dyer, by John Dyer, his father and guardian ad litem, against the Union Iron Works. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Post Avery & Higgins, for appellant.

F. H McDermont and Atwood A. Kirby, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This action was brought by the respondent, a minor, through his father as his guardian ad litem, to recover for personal injuries suffered by him while he was in the employ of the appellant. The respondent was employed as a blacksmith's helper, and received his orders from the blacksmith under whom he was working, both as to the character of work he should do and as to the manner in which he should perform it. At the time he was injured the respondent was working under a blacksmith by the name of Allison; they were engaged, with the assistance of another helper, in shaping axles for a disc harrow. The axles were shaped one at a time. In performing the work an axle was first heated in a forge to a welding heat, it was then carried to a steam hammer where it was hammered into the form desired, when it was brought back to an anvil near the forge and finished with hand hammers. The work at the steam hammer seems to have consisted of three processes. A piece of iron called a stop block was first inserted between the dies of the hammer and the axle was then brought over, placed between the dies, and hammered into a square having the thickness of the stop block. The block was then pushed off and a tip drawn on one end of the axle. A swedge with two molds was then placed between the dies, and the axle finally shaped by hammering it into these molds. It was then carried back to the anvil and finished with hand hammers as stated. The respondent's first duty as helper was to place the stop block between the dies of the steam hammer. His second duty was to place the swedge therein, and his third to assist in the hammering at the anvil. The other helper operated the steam hammer and helped with the hand hammer at the anvil. The blacksmith handled the axle and directed the work of the others. There seems to have been no system of signals between the different workers. The respondent would start to put up the stop block as soon as the finishing work at the anvil was concluded, the other helper would start at the same time for the gauges operating the steam hammer, and the blacksmith would seize another heated axle and carry it to the hammer. The helper operating the hammer would start the hammer in operation as soon as he saw that the blacksmith had placed the iron between the dies. The axles were heated in the forge four at a time, and were finished with the one heating. It was necessary after the irons were once heated that the work proceed rapidly until all were finished.

The respondent was injured while putting the stop block in place. After concluding his work at the anvil he started back to place the stop block and was in the performance of the act when the blacksmith arrived with the heated axle. As the blacksmith placed the heated iron in the die the other helper started the hammer. The respondent did not succeed in entirely clearing himself from the hammer and lost the ends of his fingers on one of his hands. The respondent based his cause of action upon the claim that the blacksmith stood to him in the relation of a vice principal, and that the blacksmith was guilty of negligence which negligence caused his injury. The appellant asserts the contrary of these propositions, and contends further that the respondent's injuries were caused by his...