Erickson v. American Steel & Wire Co.

Decision Date17 October 1906
Citation78 N.E. 761,193 Mass. 119
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
PartiesERICKSON v. AMERICAN STEEL & WIRE CO. JOHNSON v. SAME. MATTHEWS v. SAME.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Exceptions from Superior Court, Worcester County; Edwd. P. Pierce, Judge.

Action by Annie M. Johnson, as administratrix of Alfred Johnson, deceased, against the American Steel & Wire Company of New Jersey, and actions by Carl Erickson and by Edward G. Matthews against the same defendant, which actions were consolidated and tried together, and from judgments in favor of plaintiffs, defendant brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled.

Webster Thayer and Hollis W. Cobb, for plaintiff Matthews.

Victor E., Runo, for plaintiff Erickson.

John A. Thayer and Chas. B. Perry, for plaintiff Johnson.

Frank B. Smith, T. H. Gage, Jr., and Frank F. Dresser, for defendant.

RUGG, J.

The fundamental question in these cases is, whether the defendant was negligent in the construction and maintenance of its steam power plant. The plaintiffs were employés of the defendant working in a room adjoining the boiler room, in which a steam main burst, causing their injuries. Seventeen horizontal boilers were placed side by side in the boiler room. The steam main connecting with the boilers, including an expansion pipe on the end, was about 145 feet long, with an inside diameter of 14 inches and a thickness of 1 1/8 inches to 1 1/4 inches. The steam main was composed, outside of the expansion pipe, of 17 headers, so-called, made of cast iron, 1 for every boiler, each 8 feet long with flanges on both ends, so that they could be bolted together, thus making a continuous steam main or pipe. Out of the lower side of each and connecting with it by a nozzle or T-shaped piece, coming out of and forming a part of the header, was a 6-inch wrought iron pipe which, after making an angle, entered vertically its boiler.

The dimensions of these headers were sufficient, if of cast iron without flaw or defect, to sustain a steam pressure of 125 to 150 pounds to the square inch, with a factor of safety of 21, which means that it would carry a pressure 21 times as great before breaking.

The line of headers which constituted the steam main was supported on brackets attached to brick piers. The headers rested on rollers on the brackets, which permitted the steam main to move back and forth lengthwise on them, as it expanded with the heat. The expansion of the entire length was about 3 inches.

Between boilers 10 and 11 there was a blank flange or cut-off so that boilers 1 to 10 could be run at one pressure and 11 to 17 at another pressure, and they were being so run at the time of the accident, although when the plant was first installed in 1896, the boilers which were first put in use were all run at the same pressure.

At the time of the accident, boilers 1 to 10 were carrying 150 pounds of steam pressure and those numbered 11 to 17, 126 pounds pressure. At the high pressure end the main was anchored through a brick wall with a nut and rod so that it could be tightened and stop the vibration. When tightened, it could not expand over half an inch at that end. At the other end of the steam main was a goose-neck, so-called, which was a 10-inch pipe sloping downward from the main for a considerable distance and then up again in another part of the building. This device permitted expansion at that end. There was no drip-cock upon this goose-neck, but an elbow, designed to take return water and condensed steam back to the boilers. Upon the main steam line there was no expansion valve or drip-cocks.

The headers were purchased by the defendant at a reputable foundry, where they were tested, but the machine work upon the castings was done at the defendant's shop and the steam main was put together and in place with its connections to the boilers by the defendant's employés, and according to a design, both as to construction and connections, made by the defendant's engineer. It was examined by one Allen, who was a steam engineering inspector of wide experience, during construction and in part tested by him, who approved it in most, if not all, respects. The defendant applied to the headers and the steam main the usual tests before the plant was put in use and made the customary inspection while the plant was in operation.

On the day of the accident, the header of boiler 13 blew out on the back side opposite where the steam went in, leaving the main pipe in place and blowing out a space 18 or 20 inches in length.

Examination showed that at the place of the break, the cast iron was spongy, stogy or porous, but this condition was concealed by a skin of good iron on the outside one-sixteenth to one-eighth of an inch in thickness and on the inside one-fourth to one-half an inch in thickness. The porous part did not show on the inside or outside of the pipe. At the defective place the good iron was between one-fourth and one-half an inch thick which should bear over 1000 pounds pressure of steam.

There was evidence from several of the witnesses, whose familiarity with the construction and operation of steam plants was not in question, that the plan of this steam pipe line with its boiler connections and anchorage was defective. The professor of steam...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Black v. Boston Consol. Gas Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 10 Marzo 1950
    ... ... Brookline, 126 Mass. 324, 326; Erickson v. American ... Steel & Wire Co. of New Jersey, 193 Mass. 119, 125, 126, ... ...
  • West v. Linehan
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 29 Marzo 1909
    ... ... properly be drawn. Melvin v. Pennsylvania Steel Co., ... 180 Mass. 196, 62 N.E. 379; Kleibaz v. Milton Paper ... Co., 0 Mass. 363, 62 N.E. 371; Erickson v ... American Steel & Wire Co., 193 Mass. 119, 78 N.E. 761; ... Ryan ... ...
  • Erickson v. American Steel & Wire Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 17 Octubre 1906

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT