Flaherty v. McClintic-Marshall Const. Co.
| Decision Date | 05 January 1914 |
| Docket Number | 269 |
| Citation | 90 A. 342,243 Pa. 580 |
| Parties | Flaherty, Appellant, v. McClintic-Marshall Construction Company |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued November 6, 1913
Appeal, No. 269, Oct. T., 1913, by plaintiff, from judgment of C.P. Allegheny Co., Fourth T., 1908, No. 754, for defendant n.o.v., in case of John Flaherty v McClintic-Marshall Construction Company. Affirmed.
Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before COHEN, J.
The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Verdict for plaintiff for $6,500.
The court subsequently directed judgment to be entered for the defendant non obstante veredicto. Plaintiff appealed.
Error assigned was the order of the court.
The judgment is affirmed.
L. K Porter, for appellant.
W. S. Dalzell, of Dalzell, Fisher & Hawkins, for appellee.
Before FELL, C.J., BROWN, MESTREZAT, ELKIN and MOSCHZISKER, JJ.
The plaintiff was a bridge builder and structural iron worker of many years' experience. At the time he was injured he was employed by the McClintic-Marshall Construction Company which had the contract for the construction of the steel work and the corrugated roofing of the cast houses and the buildings around the two new furnaces of the Republic Iron and Steel Company in the City of Youngstown, Ohio. The furnaces were in operation while the work was being done by the construction company. On Monday, October 16, 1906, the plaintiff and his helper went to work at riveting into place a galvanized iron ridge cap attached to one of the blast furnaces. He was what was known as a "bucker up" and his helper was a "sheeter." The latter put the rivets through the sheeting from the outside and the plaintiff put the nuts or burrs on the rivets on the inside. He and the sheeter were working about sixteen feet above the ground on a temporary scaffold. While thus engaged at his work on October 18th, the plaintiff was overcome by fumes of gas, and fell from the scaffold upon a hot gas pipe which burned him severely.
He alleges in his statement that he was overcome by the fumes of gas which were negligently and carelessly permitted to escape from the furnaces in the building in which he was working causing him to lose consciousness and fall from the trestle upon a hot pipe by which he was burned; that his injuries were caused by the negligence of the defendant company in permitting gas to escape in the building in which he was working when it knew or should have known that the presence of gas was dangerous to the life of the plaintiff and other employees, and that the defendant was negligent in failing to give the plaintiff sufficient warning of the dangers incident to his work while the gas was escaping.
The work was being done by the defendant company while the blast furnaces of the Republic Iron and Steel Company were in operation and the gas came from the furnaces. The defendant had nothing to do with or control over the operation of the furnaces and the presence of the gas there was as well known to the plaintiff as to the defendant company. He began work on Monday, October 16th, and continued until he was injured on the following Wednesday morning. He testifies that he began work at eight o'clock on Monday morning and after he had worked fifteen minutes he smelled gas and came down to get some fresh air. He told his boss that the gas was escaping, that he smelled it, and that he thought it better to come down from the place he was working as he thought it was dangerous. The boss told him it was not dangerous, to go ahead, that he could work up there for half an hour at a time. He continued his work during Monday, working fifteen minutes at a time and then leaving the place for ten minutes. On Tuesday morning when he went to work he found the same conditions and informed the boss who again told him to continue his work, that it would not hurt him. He resumed the work and continued at the same intervals throughout Tuesday. On Wednesday morning he started to work again when he found the same difficulty and advised his boss of it who told him he had better go back to work again. He did so and before he had worked ten minutes the accident happened.
On cross examination the plaintiff admitted that he knew of the presence of the gas in the place he was working, that some one had told him that by reason of the gas it was dangerous for him to work there, that on Monday he was overcome by gas and was helped down from the platform by two men, that on Monday...
To continue reading
Request your trial