Guggenheim Smelting Co. v. Sofield

• Decision Date: 18 June 1900
• Parties: GUGGENHEIM SMELTING CO. v. SOFIELD.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

46 A. 711

64 N.J.L. 605

GUGGENHEIM SMELTING CO.

v. SOFIELD.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

June 18, 1900.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error to supreme court.

Action by Nellie Sofield, administratrix, against the Guggenheim Smelting Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Reversed.

Alan H. & Theodore Strong, for plaintiff in error. Cortlandt & Wayne Parker, for defendant in error.

LIPPINCOTT, J.Charles Sofield, the Intestate of the plaintiff below, was on July 11, 1898, in the employment of the defendant, as one of its workmen, in its smelting furnace and copper factory at Perth Amboy. Just after midnight of that day, at a very early hour in the morning, while on his way into the yard of the factory, along a passageway beside a tank or shot pit containing water which had become heated by molten copper being thrown into it, he fell into the same, and was scalded. He immediately got out without assistance, but he died in the hospital the same day from the injuries received. The plaintiff recovered judgment against the defendant in the supreme court for damages, under the death act, resulting to the widow and next of kin by reason of his death. This writ of error is to review the submission of the case to the jury for its determination by the learned trial justice.

It is only necessary to consider two assignments of error,—one upon the denial of the motion to nonsuit the plaintiff, and the other upon the denial of the motion to direct a verdict for the defendant. The facts adduced at the trial, so far as it is necessary to consider them upon these assignments of error, are not in dispute. The situation and the surrounding circumstances were such that no dispute whatever could arise as to matter of fact in these respects. The deceased, Sofield, was at work with other workmen at what was known as "Furnace No. 2," in the copper reverberatory building, as a "helper." He was employed the day before the accident, and had been at work only one day. This furnace was running off a blast of copper metal, and the deceased was engaged principally in what is known as "skimming" the furnace, and doing errands for the foreman in charge of the operation of the furnace. Four other workmen under the same foreman were engaged at furnace No. 1, some 15 feet northerly of furnace No. 2, and on a line with it and several other furnaces in that building. These latter workmen were engaged in operating furnace No. 1, which was producing molten copper to be ladled and thrown into the shot well, to make "shot copper," as it is called, or blue vitriol. This tank, pit, or shot well was situate about 15 feet northerly of furnace No. 1, and on a line about 7 feet from the line of furnace No. 1, No. 2, and the other furnaces, measured at right angles, leaving a passageway of about that width between the line of the furnaces and the nearest side of the shot well, measured across at right angles. This shot well or pit was about 7 feet long, about 6 feet wide, and about 6 feet deep, and at the time the work commenced filled with cold water. This passageway led through a door into the yard at the north of this building, in which, among other things, there was a blacksmith shop for the uses of the factory. The nearest edge of the shot well was 20 inches back from the line of the nearest jamb of this door. There were three other doors at the northerly end of the building leading into this yard, and several passageways beside the one which ran past the furnaces, by which access could be gained to the yard and blacksmith shop. This pit or well was sunk in the floor of the factory, without any railing or other safeguard around it, but it was covered with planks furnished by the defendant company for that purpose. It was always kept so covered when not in use, uncovered when in use, and the planking replaced to cover it again when the use of it ceased. The evidence is that this planking, when placed over the pit, afforded perfect security and protection from any one falling into it, and that it was easily adjustable to the top of the pit for these purposes. The workmen commenced work at this furnace No. 1 about 7 o'clock in the evening. They first uncovered the pit by taking the planking off the pit, it then being filled with cold water. The work of throwing the molten copper from the furnace into the nearest side of the pit proceeded. As the pit became filled on that side, the plank was replaced, and the work proceeded until midnight. The workmen then took a recess for lunch, and went to the yard at the north end of the building, just outside the door of the passageway, for that purpose. At that time the pit had been filled so that about 2 feet of it had been re-covered with the planking. The other portion these workmen left uncovered while they were away taking the lunch, although the planking which they had taken off remained to be replaced over the pit. Sofield at this time was engaged at furnace No. 2, and he was just at. that time told by the foreman to go and get a "rabbling iron," from the blacksmith shop in the yard. In doing this he could use one of several passageways and doors leading into the yard. He was not directed as to the course he should take to do this errand. He started, apparently, along the passageway in front of furnace No. 1 and the other furnace, and stumbled, slipped, or fell into the uncovered portion of this pit. The evidence of the cause of his thus falling is variant. It will be again observed that the passageway was about 7 feet wide from the line of the furnace to the nearest edge of the shot well. The portion of the well to the extent of, about 2 feet nearest the passageway was already covered with planking. It will be observed that the nearest edge of the well was about 15 inches from the jamb of the door out of which he intended to pass, if he intended to use the passageway at that door, and the edge of the planking at the uncovered portion of the well must have been about 30 inches from that point. There is evidence that the door of furnace No. 1 was open, and the evidence is that, to be safe from the heat of it, it would be necessary to keep about 2 feet away from it. There is some evidence that he was seen standing looking at the well, and that he took a diagonal course to go through the middle door of the building, and that to do so he attempted to jump over the pit and a row of molds on the other side of the pit. and thus fell in. He got out at the corner of the pit, and went into the yard by this middle door. The evidence is clear and undisputed that he knew of the location of the pit. On July 3d, a week before his employment, he was there watching the workmen at this very work. On...