Edd v. The Union Pac. Coal Co.

• Decision Date: 21 January 1903
• Docket Number: 1408
• Citation: 71 P. 215,25 Utah 293
• Court: Utah Supreme Court
• Parties: CHARLES EDD, Appellant, v. THE UNION PACIFIC COAL COMPANY, a Corporation, Respondent

71 P. 215

25 Utah 293

CHARLES EDD, Appellant, v. THE UNION PACIFIC COAL COMPANY, a Corporation, Respondent

No. 1408

Supreme Court of Utah

January 21, 1903

Appeal from the Second District Court, Weber County.--Hon. Henry H Rolapp, Judge.

Action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been received through the negligence of the defendant. From a judgment in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff appealed.

AFFIRMED.

W. L Maginnis, Esq., and Charles Stout, Esq., for appellant.

Le Grand Young, Esq., for respondent.

BARTCH J., delivered the opinion of the court. BASKIN, C. J., and BOOTH, District Judge, concur.

OPINION

BARTCH, J.

STATEMENT OF FACTS.

This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been received through the negligence of the defendant. The essential allegations of the complaint, in substance, are that on May 15, 1901, the plaintiff was in the employ of the defendant as a pumpman; that his duties required him to operate two pumps in the company's mine No. 1, situate at Rock Springs, Wyoming, for the purpose of pumping water to the surface; that one of the pumps was small, while the other was a compound pump; that both pumps were out of order--the small one by reason of having a hole through its plunger, and of its valves being coated with a scale, caused by deposits from the water being pumped out of the mine, which defects caused great vibration and jarring while the pump was being operated; that the compound pump was out of order, because of the deposits of the mineral water, which was being pumped made on the valves, and especially on the valve of the discharge pipe, causing it to leak; that on said May 15, 1901, the plaintiff, in the course of his duty, and in the exercise of all the care possible under the circumstances, while attempting to remove certain valves in the cylinder of the compound pump, reached into the cylinder with his hand, the pump not being in motion; that upon doing so the plunger of the pump unexpectedly moved forward and caught his right hand and forearm, crushing the same in such manner that amputation became necessary; and that the movement of the plunger was caused by the leakage of the water through the valves into the pipes behind the cylinder, and by reason of the jarring and vibration of the small pump. The answer admits the fact of the injury, but denies negligence, and alleges contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. The evidence of the plaintiff, in accordance with the allegations of the complaint, shows that at the time of the accident he was working at the pumps, they having become scaled, and was trying to fix the valves; that he had stopped the pumps by shutting the steam off; that, because of the scales, the main discharge pipe valve leaked after the pumps were stopped, and the water filled up the cylinder behind the plunger; and that this water, and the knocking and the jarring of the small pump because of its being out of order, caused the plunger to move and crush his hand. The plaintiff, among other things, testified: "I stopped the pump and went to work to take the valve out. I stopped the little back pump first, and then stopped the other big one. This valve I shut was what is called the 'throttle valve,' and after I had done this I took the covers off the left-hand cylinder. I went to the throttle valve and turned on the steam, so that the plunger would go back to the end I had been working on. I put the covers on before doing this. I again shut the steam off solid with a monkey wrench." With reference to what caused the plunger to move, he stated: "There was nothing else except the water behind the plunger there present that by itself would have moved the plunger forward, except the knocking and jarring caused by the other pump, that I know of." The witness further stated: "After I got the valves fixed, they were still leaking some--perhaps a half-inch pipe full--on account of scales on the valve seats; that is, the top or discharge valves." The plaintiff's witness Leavitt testified: "From my experience as a pumpman, if I saw the water coming in at the rate of what would flow through a half-inch pipe, flowing down through the cylinder against the plunger, I would expect that the cylinder would fill up and push the plunger back on me. That would be the natural consequence. If the pump was well lubricated and in good working order, I would expect it would move. As a matter of ordinary precaution, I would consider it necessary to move the head off the cylinder in such circumstances." Under this and other similar...