Olsen v. New England Fuel & Transp. Co.

• Decision Date: 26 February 1925
• Citation: 146 N.E. 656,251 Mass. 389
• Parties: OLSEN v. NEW ENGLAND FUEL & TRANSPORTATION CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

251 Mass. 389

146 N.E. 656

OLSEN

v.NEW ENGLAND FUEL & TRANSPORTATION CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Feb. 26, 1925.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Louis S. Cox, Judge.

Action of tort by Thomas M. Olsen against the New England Fuel & Transportation Company, to recover for injuries received through explosion of auxiliary stop valve of boiler, while working on defendant's steamship as employé of third person. Verdict for plaintiff, and defendant excepts. Exceptions sustained.W. R. Bigelow, of Boston, for plaintiff.

G. P. Wardner, of Boston, for defendant.

WAIT, J.

The bill of exceptions presents two question: Was the testimony of Stromberg properly admitted? Was there evidence of negligence sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to go to the jury?

[1][2] The exception to the admission of the evidence must be overruled. Stromberg was asked whether, from an inspection of the valve whose breaking causing the injury, he was able to state what would have been an adequate cause for breaking out the piece then missing. This was a proper subject for expert testimony. The witness was a machinist and steam engineer who, for the 18 years preceding, had worked repairing marine engines and boilders and building boilers and who for 9 years before that had been at sea as an engineer. He had never known a valve exactly like the one before him to break, but had known of the breaking of a similar valve. He knew something of castings and of cast iron, but never had made a study of them and did not know all about what defects came in castings and why. Obviously he was qualified to answer the question put to him. His experience enabled him to give evidence of value; even if it was not so universally comprehensive that it covered all possible matters involved in the breaking of a valve. No objection was made to further questions. If the defendant was dissatisfied with his qualification to answer them, it should have objected and obtained rulings on the sufficiency of his expert knowledge in regard to the matters then inquired about. As was said, with abundant citation of authority, in Johnson v. Lowell, 240 Mass. 546, 549, 134 N. E. 627, 629:

‘It is settled that whether a witness offered as an expert is qualified to give an opinion, rests very largely in the discretion of the presiding judge whose decision will not be reversed unless clearly erroneous as matter of law.’

No clear error of law appears.

[3] The evidence, taken most strongly for the plaintiff, shows that the valve broke in the cast-iron casting, and that no one could be certain just what caused the break. The value was of standard make, and had been in use since 1908, under a usual pressure while the vessel was at sea of 180 pounds per square inch. It had been closed for the two days before the accident and was under a pressure of about 120 pounds, which was the pressure at the time it gave way. There was no evidence of the lifetime of such a valve. It had been inspected yearly, the last inspection in the July preceding the December of the accident, and when inspected had been found in good condition. There was no evidence of any old crack. It was necessary to take the valve apart in order to inspect the region of the break. There was no evidence to show that it was usual to take such valves down oftener than once a year. There was no evidence that it had leaked or shown any defect in service. The opinion of Stromberg was the only testimony that the break might have resulted from a hammering caused by condensation in the steam pipe which brought a sudden and unusual strain upon the casting at a time when it was under an undue strain due to being screwed down improperly in closing it. Equally probable explanations were shown. There was no evidence that, in fact, the value had been screwed down too tightly. We disregard the evidence that the spindle would have...