Ferringer v. Crowley Oil & Mineral Co

• Citation: 47 So. 763,122 La. 441
• Decision Date: 14 December 1908
• Docket Number: 17,151
• Parties: FERRINGER v. CROWLEY OIL & MINERAL CO
• Court: Supreme Court of Louisiana

47 So. 763

122 La. 441

FERRINGER v. CROWLEY OIL & MINERAL CO

No. 17,151

Supreme Court of Louisiana

December 14, 1908

Appeal from Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Acadia Philip Sidney Pugh, Judge.

Action by George Ferringer against the Crowley Oil & Mineral Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Modified and affirmed.

Hampden Story (Chappuis & Holt, of counsel), for appellant.

Shelby Taylor (James Albert Gremillion, of counsel), for appellee.

OPINION

LAND J.

This is a suit for damages for personal injuries. Plaintiff was badly scalded while he and another workman were repairing a pipe which was connected with a hot water pump in the boiler room of defendant's air compressor plant at the Jenning's oil field. The line of pipe to be repaired was in bad condition, and it seems to be an undisputed fact that the hot water was shut off in the morning prior to the commencement of the work of repair, and was not turned on again until some time in the afternoon. The preponderance of the evidence is that defendant's foreman, knowing that the men were at work on the pipes, started the hot water pump, and ordered the fireman to open the hot water valve. The result was that the overhead pipe on which the men were working was filled with hot water up to a cut off valve which was shut at the time. The two men were engaged in connecting a new piece of pipe beyond the valve, and the nature of the work required the springing more or less of the pipe on the other side of the valve. The nipple connecting with the elbow of the vertical pipe leading to the hot water pump was either broken or pulled out by the strain, and the plaintiff was deluged with hot water.

We think that in starting the hot water pump the foreman was guilty of negligence. The pipe was in bad condition. The threads of the nipple were worn off. The nature of the work required the springing of the pipe in order to make connections. The work of repair was without danger when the hot water was turned off. The foreman made the work hazardous by starting the hot water pump. This was the efficient cause of the accident.

The plea of contributory negligence is not made out on the face of the record before us. Both of the men testified that the hot water had been turned off all day, and that they did not know it had been turned on during the afternoon. Defendant's foreman testified that he in passing warned both of them to be careful, as the hot water pump had been started. Both men denied that any such warning was given, and from...