Moore v. Rumford Printing Co.

• Decision Date: 07 May 1936
• Citation: 185 A. 165
• Parties: MOORE v. RUMFORD PRINTING CO.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

185 A. 165

MOORE

v. RUMFORD PRINTING CO.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Merrimack.

May 7, 1936.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Merrimack County; Lorimer, Judge.

Proceeding under the Employers' Liability and Workmen's Compensation Act by Emily G. Moore, administratrix of the estate of the employee, deceased, against the Rumford Printing Company, employer. On defendant's bill of exceptions to the findings which resulted in an award to plaintiff and to the failure to find as requested.

Exceptions overruled.

Petition, for compensation under Pub. Laws c. 178. The facts were found and reported by the court.

The plaintiff's intestate was continuously employed by the defendant as a pressman from September 7, 1927, to June 15, 1932. During the evening of the last day of his employment (he was working on the night shift) his duties required his presence at the delivery end of a press upon which sheets for an extra large magazine were being printed. Due to the size of the work the press was being operated at about two-thirds its normal speed.

At the delivery of this press there was a "gas bar," so called, which consisted of a piece of gas pipe about six feet long having a series of holes throughout its entire length. Ordinary illuminating gas, which contained 28 per cent. carbon monoxide, entered this bar at the right-hand end, and, escaping through the perforations, was ignited by means of a pilot light, also at the right-hand end of the bar. The purpose of the gas bar was to dry and set the ink on the printed sheets as they passed over it.

The flow of gas into the bar was controlled by a valve consisting of a small steel, ball which, when the press was not in operation, rested over the aperture of the valve and closed it. When the press was in operation, its vibration caused the ball to spin away from its seat and permitted the gas to enter the bar. The motion of this ball varied with the speed of the press.

The court found that on the night in question "the gas bar flamed irregularly. When working properly it should have flamed constantly as long as the press operated. For some reason on this occasion it varied. Sometimes the bar ignited properly, other times only the right half nearest to the pilot ignited, and occasionally the flame extinguished entirely and the deceased would have to light it with a match. There was a perceptible odor of unconsumed gas escaping. After a few moments of inhalation of the unconsumed gas the deceased became insensitive to the smell."

About two hours after commencing work on the night of June 15, 1932, the decedent became ill. Thinking it was indigestion, he took bicarbonate of soda, but obtained no relief. His condition became progressively worse, and he was later taken home in a semiconscious condition. A doctor attended him that night and again on the following morning. On the occasion of the second visit the decedent was able to give a history of his illness, and the doctor diagnosed his condition as due to gas poisoning.

During the ensuing weeks the decedent's condition did not materially improve. During the month of July he was examined by a doctor representing the defendant's insurance carrier and thereafter received compensation until a few days before his death, which occurred on October 23, 1932.

In conclusion, the court found that the decedent's death was "due to carbon monoxide contracted into his system by the intermittent inhalation of unconsumed illuminating gas for a period of about two hours while working at the defendant's plant," and that his death was "caused by or resulted from an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment at the Rumford Printing Company in Concord on June 15, 1932."

On the basis of these findings the court ruled that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation "in the lump sum of $4500 less the amount of compensation actually paid to the plaintiff's intestate."

The defendant's bill of exceptions to the findings and to the failure to find as requested was allowed by Lorimer, J.

Robert W. Upton and Laurence I. Duncan, both of Concord, for plaintiff.

Murchie, Murchie & Blandin and Alexander Murchie, all of Concord, for defendant.

WOODBURY, Justice.

The defendant's bill of exceptions raises the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to warrant the finding that the decedent's "death was due to carbon monoxide contracted into his system by the intermittent inhalation of unconsumed illuminating gas for a period of about two hours while working at the defendant's plant" on the night of June 15, 1932, and also the question of whether the court was correct in ruling that his death "was caused by or resulted from an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment."

Three questions are therefore presented: First, was there any evidence from which it could be found that unconsumed illuminating gas, in sufficient quantity to affect a human being, was present in the decedent's work place during the early evening of June 15, 1932? Second, if there was, did it in fact cause, or contribute to cause, the heart condition from which the decedent later died? And, third, was the plaintiff's injury "accidental" within the meaning of the Employers Liability and Workmen's Compensation Act as construed in Guay v. Brown Company, 83 N.H. 392, 393, 142 A. 697, 60 A.L.R. 1284? In order to sustain the award of compensation all these questions must be answered in the affirmative.

The only evidence concerning the events of the evening of June 15, 1932, came from one Boland, who was the decedent's assistant. He testified that about half an hour after commencing work he smelled gas about the press and that the gas bar was not functioning properly. His...