Holloway v. H. W. Johns-Manville Co.

• Decision Date: 08 May 1908
• Citation: 135 Wis. 629,116 N.W. 635
• Parties: HOLLOWAY v. H. W. JOHNS-MANVILLE CO.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

135 Wis. 629

116 N.W. 635

HOLLOWAY

v.H. W. JOHNS-MANVILLE CO.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

May 8, 1908.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Milwaukee County; Orren T. Williams, Judge.

Action by Frank Holloway against the H. W. Johns-Manville Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Action to recover damages for personal injuries. The defendant is a corporation owning and operating a large manufacturing plant at Wauwatosa, which is operated by steam furnished by a number of large tubular boilers. For some months prior to October 12, 1903, the plaintiff, a common laborer, 58 years of age, had been employed by the defendant as a general utility man, helping at blacksmithing, steamfitting, and repairing of various kinds as he was directed. It was necessary to clean the boilers frequently, and they were cleaned one at a time. The method was to blow off the steam and hot water 12 hours or more before the boiler was to be cleaned in order that it might be cool enough to enter, remove the manhole, and then send a man inside with a light and hose; his duty being to wash out the inside with a stream of cold water through the hose. The plaintiff had frequently cleaned boilers when directed, and knew that if they were not cool enough inside there would be danger. He knew also that they could be tested before going in by turning the hose into them and seeing if steam was formed. Charles Quinlay was head engineer at the time of the accident, and the plaintiff had been placed under his orders. The plaintiff claims: That in the evening of October 12th the engineer, Quinlay, told him he was going to give him a steady job. That he was to clean one boiler every day. That he was to start with boiler No. 6 on the following morning. That he (plaintiff) then said to Quinlay: “All right, I will start in the morning. You see that the boiler is blowed off to-night at 8 o'clock”--to which Quinlay replied that he would see to it. The plaintiff further testifies that he came back in the morning, found the manhole of the boiler off, but could not find the gaskets which were necessary to prepare the manhole plates for the work; that it took some time to get gaskets, and when he was about ready he met engineer Quinlay, who asked him if he hadn't got that boiler yet, and he replied that he had been getting the manhole plates ready, and then asked Quinlay if the boiler was fixed for him to go in, to which Quinlay replied that the boiler was fixed for him to go in, that he had tested it and found it was all right, that he wanted him to take a hammer, the extension lights, go in and wash it out clean, and see that the stay bolts were firm and stable, and that there were no leaks; that he then got on the boiler with his hose, and got into the boiler through the manhole, and ordered the water turned on through the hose; that the water was turned on, and when it struck the back end of the boiler it turned to steam because that part of the boiler was still heated; that he got his head out of the boiler through the manhole, but could not get the rest of his body out, and was badly scalded by the steam. Plaintiff further testified that he would have tested the boiler himself before going in if the engineer had not told him that he had already tested it.

The engineer Quinlay denied that he promised that he would see that the boiler was blown off before 8 o'clock in the evening, and denied that he told the plaintiff that he had tested it, or that it was fit for him to go in. It was not denied that the plaintiff was seriously scalded and permanently injured. A verdict for the plaintiff assessing his damages at $5,308.33 was rendered, a motion for new trial was denied, and judgment rendered on the verdict, from which defendant appeals.Roemer & Aarons (John M. Niven, of counsel), for appellant.

William T. Green (W. B. Rubin, of counsel), for respondent.

WINSLOW, C. J. (after stating the facts as above).

In addition to its main contention that a verdict for the defendant should have been directed, the appellant in its brief assignsa number of detail errors; but as counsel upon the argument expressly waived consideration of these minor errors, and insisted only upon the general claim of insufficiency of the evidence to sustain any verdict for the plaintiff, we are relieved from the consideration...