Innes v. City of Milwaukee

• Decision Date: 30 April 1897
• Citation: 96 Wis. 170,70 N.W. 1064
• Parties: INNES v. CITY OF MILWAUKEE.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

96 Wis. 170

70 N.W. 1064

INNES

v.CITY OF MILWAUKEE.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

April 30, 1897.

Appeal from circuit court, Milwaukee county; D. H. Johnson, Judge.

Action by Jane Innes, administratrix of Alexander Innes, deceased, against the city of Milwaukee. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Reversed.

Plaintiff's intestate, Alexander Innes, was an employé of defendant, to assist in attending some steam boilers used to generate steam for power to operate its water pumps. The boilers were put in place and installed for defendant by the E. P. Allis Company, a few months before the injury hereafter mentioned. One of the necessary attachments to such boilers was a blow-off pipe used for emptying the boilers when desired. At a point in such blow-off pipe where it was subjected to the full pressure of steam in the boilers was a cast-iron bend, attached to the wrought-iron pipe by means of a thread on the pipe and in the elbow, whereby the two were screwed together. While the deceased was about his work, the steam pressure caused the bend to burst, whereby steam and hot water escaped from the boilers, and so scalded the deceased as to cause his death. This action was brought by the personal representative of the deceased, to recover damages, on the theory that the cast-iron bend was insufficient, and that defendant knew it, or ought to have known of it, and that the deceased came to his death by reason of negligence on the part of the defendant in operating its steam plant with such defective bend, so located as to be liable to burst, and injure those required to be in the vicinity about their work. The defendant answered, denying that the bend was insufficient, or that its bursting was attributable to any negligence on the part of the defendant, and alleged that the boilers were furnished, set up, and put in operation for the defendant by the Edward P. Allis Company; that said company was of good credit and reputation in its business, and was relied upon by defendant to adjust all the parts of the steam apparatus in a suitable manner; that the steam pipe and cast-iron bend had no discoverable defects prior to the accident, and that they were reasonably safe and serviceable for the purpose for which they were designed and used. The jury rendered a special verdict in part as follows: “Q. Was such pipe and bend constructed of the materials and in the manner ordinarily and usually employed in the construction of such pipes and bends, at and prior to the time of the accident? A. Yes. Q. Were there at that time other and safer elbows or bends known and in general use? A. Yes. Q. If you answer the fourth interrogatory in the affirmative, were such other and safer appliances generally known to be less liable to sudden breaks and explosions? A. Yes. Q. Was there any defect or insufficiency in such pipe or bend which caused such bend to give way and burst? A. Yes. Q. If you answer the last question in the affirmative, was such defect or insufficiency so obvious and apparent that the officers and agents of the defendant city knew, or might in the exercise of ordinary care have discovered it? A. Yes. Q. Was the defendant, the city of Milwaukee, or any of its officers, guilty of any want of ordinary care which was the proximate cause of the injury to the plaintiff? A. Yes. Q. Did the defendant contract for a purchase of the blow-off pipe and bend from reputable and responsible dealers in and manufacturers of such appliances? A. Yes. Q. Did the defendant contract for and purchase the blow-off pipe from Edward P. Allis Company, and were the same connected with the boiler by it under its contract with the defendant? A. Yes. Q. If you answer ‘Yes' to the last question, and also to the sixth question, did the defect and insufficiency in the blow-off pipe and bend, which caused the bend to give way and burst, result from the carelessness and neglect of the Edward P. Allis Company, its agents, employés, or workmen, in the first instance? A. Yes.” Damages were assessed at the sum of $3,000. Both sides moved for a judgment on the special verdict. Defendant's motion was denied, and plaintiff's granted. Judgment was thereupon entered in plaintiff's favor, from which judgment this appeal was taken, proper exceptions having been made to present the question discussed in the opinion.

Chas. H. Hamilton and M. W. Nohl, for appellant.

Bell, Brazee & Stover, for respondent.

MARSHALL, J. (after stating the facts).

The...