National Steel Co. v. Lowe
| Decision Date | 05 January 1904 |
| Docket Number | 1,212. |
| Parties | NATIONAL STEEL CO. v. LOWE. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Plaintiff a stove tender in defendant steelworks, was burned by molten iron from a blast furnace, caused by a water block being forced from the wall of the furnace. The block had become defective on the evening of the previous day, and the superintendent ordered preparations made to remove it. That evening the packing was removed to a depth of 9 or 10 inches and between 7 and 8 o'clock the next morning the superintendent, though it had been his intention to remove the block when the blast was off the furnace during the 9 o'clock cast, on his being notified that the water was not running freely through the different blocks, by reason of the strainer being clogged, directed that the block should not be removed until 12 o'clock, and that the water strainer be repaired at the same time. Before noon, and while the blast was still on the furnace, and as certain workmen were preparing to pull out the block, the inside of which had become melted off by reason of the defect in the water apparatus, the block was suddenly forced from the wall by the pressure in the furnace, and plaintiff was burned by the flame and molten material issuing from the aperture. Held that, whether treated as a place at which to work, or an appliance with which to work, it was the positive duty of the company to keep the furnace reasonably safe for its employes at work about it. For any neglect to do this, the company was responsible, as the duty could not be delegated.
James C. Tallman, for plaintiff in error.
C. L Weems, Chas J. Lynch, and Fred Spriggs, for defendant in error.
Before LURTON, SEVERENS, and RICHARDS, Circuit Judges.
Chester A. Lowe, the defendant in error, was employed by the National Steel Company, plaintiff in error, at Furnace No. 2, of its plant, in Bellaire, Ohio, and while so employed, on January 24, 1901, was badly burned, as he claimed, through the negligence of the company, by the sudden forcing from the walls of the furnace of a 'water block.' The original action was brought in the local state court, and removed by the company to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio. The trial court refusing to direct a verdict for the defendant, the case was submitted to the jury, and a verdict and judgment rendered for $10,000. The case is here on error.
Furnace No. 2 was a hot blast furnace, used to manufacture pig iron from iron ore. The raw material was dumped into the top of the furnace, and the molten product drawn off at the bottom. To melt the raw material, a high degree of heat was required, and, to produce and maintain it, air heated in hot blast stoves was pumped into the furnace by powerful blowing engines through tuyeres. This process produced intense heat within the furnace, and a strong pressure upon its walls. To keep the walls cool, some 200 copper water blocks were inserted in the walls in the lower part of the furnace, and formed a part thereof. Water was conducted into these water blocks through pipes from a tank which was kept full of water pumped from the Ohio river. At the bottom of the tank, there was a perforated cylinder, which acted as a strainer, and around it a steel brush worked up and down to keep it free from mud and debris. To keep the blocks cool, the water had to be kept in constant circulation, and for this purpose had to be kept clear of any substance which would clog the smaller pipes through which it entered the blocks. A water tender looked after the circulation of the water, and a plumber was provided to make necessary repairs. A stoppage of the water while the blast was on would soon result in the melting of the inside ends of the blocks, and a consequent weakening of the walls.
The process of drawing off the melted iron at the bottom of the furnace through the tapping hole was called a 'cast,' and a cast was made every three hours. After casting, the blast was shut off until the tapping could be closed, when it was put on again. In the operation of the furnace, it was of great importance to keep the blast on as steadily as possible. The shutting off of the blast for any considerable time was liable to chill the furnace and cause serious trouble and expense. For this reason, it was usual to remove a leaking water block directly after a cast, and while the blast was shut off; and, in order to save time, the packing about the block to a safe depth was dug away in advance, so that the block might be promptly pulled out when the blast was shut off.
Aside from the superintendent, who had complete charge, the men working at the furnace were called the 'furnacemen,' and consisted of a turn foreman, who represented the superintendent in his absence, the stove tender, first and second helper, cinder snapper, scrapper, water tender, and plumber. They were divided into two gangs, the day turn being in charge of the superintendent; and the night, of the turn foreman. No one except the superintendent had authority to remove a water block. The work of removing a block was usually done by some of these men under the direction and supervision of the superintendent, or, in his absence the turn foreman.
The plaintiff below charged in his amended petition that, while the furnace was still in the blast, the defendant below negligently and carelessly caused the brick, mortar, and fire clay to be dug away from immediately around one of the water blocks, so as dangerously to weaken the same, and, while it was in this weakened condition, carelessly and negligently permitted and caused the water pipes feeding the water block with water to become so out of repair and disconnected as not to feed the water block properly with water, and negligently and carelessly continued to operate the furnace, and to force air by means of the engines through the furnace, while the water block was in the condition mentioned, and by such negligence caused the water block to be violently forced from the wall of the furnace, and whereby the molten metal and flame in the furnace were forced out of the opening thus negligently made, and against the body of the plaintiff, burning him, etc.
The answer of the company denied all negligence, alleged that the furnace was being operated in the customary and usual way when the water block was forced from the wall, and averred that the plaintiff was injured because he was not at his post of duty. It may be remarked that this defense-- that the plaintiff below was not at his post of duty when hurt-- was abandoned on the trial, the testimony showing conclusively that he was in the discharge of his duties when injured.
Upon the trial, testimony was introduced tending to establish the following facts: Harry Thomas was the superintendent of the furnace, in full charge of its operations, with authority to employ and discharge men, and order and supervise repairs. Next to him was the turn boss or foreman. The superintendent was the only one who had power to order the removal of a water block. Between 4 and 5 o'clock on the evening of January 23, 1901, it was discovered that one of the blocks was leaking, and Thomas gave orders that preparations be made to remove it. About 6 o'clock, the turn boss, Dunn, then in charge of the night turn, gave directions to dig around the water block and get ready to take it out. Accordingly the packing about the block was removed to the depth of 9 or 10 inches. This work was completed between 10 and 11 o'clock that night. The cast was made at 12 o'clock, and another at 3 a.m., another at 6 a.m.; and between 7 and 8 o'clock the superintendent, who had been off during the night turn, returned to the furnace. It had been the intention to remove the block on the 9 o'clock cast, the morning of January 24th, but Chissholm, the plumber, notified Thomas, when he reached the furnace, that it had developed at different water blocks that the water was not running as freely as it should, owing to the fact that the steel brush had become disconnected, and the strainer was more or less clogged. In view of this, Thomas directed that the removal of the water block should be postponed until the 12 o'clock cast, so that an additional plumber might be ready to repair the steel brush at the same time the leaking water block was removed. The postponement was to save time-- to enable both things to be done while the blast was off. At noon all was ready to remove the water block and repair the steel brush. But while the blast was still on, and certain workmen were preparing to apply the pressure to pull the block, it was suddenly forced out of the wall by pressure inside. Through the hole thus made, molten iron, cinder, and flame were discharged, killing one of the workmen, and badly burning the plaintiff, Lowe. While Lowe was a stove tender, and usually employed at the hot blast stoves, it appears that he was frequently used by the superintendent to 'catch the test'; that is, to catch the tapping hole a small amount of the cast to be used for testing purposes. He had done this, and was standing near the superintendent. The workmen were getting ready to pull the block, and the blast was still on. The attention of the superintendent was called to the fact that the block was hot; that blazing gas was issuing from around it. So he directed Lowe to go to the cord used to shut off the blast, and be ready to pull it when he gave the signal. Lowe had taken a couple of steps toward the cord when the block gave way. An...
To continue reading
Request your trial