Reynolds v. Burgess Sulphite Fibre Co.

• Decision Date: 06 December 1904
• Citation: 73 N.H. 126,59 A. 615
• Parties: REYNOLDS v. BURGESS SULPHITE FIBRE CO.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

59 A. 615

73 N.H. 126

REYNOLDS

v. BURGESS SULPHITE FIBRE CO.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Coos.

Dec. 6, 1904.

Transferred from Superior Court.

Action for injuries to an employé, resulting in death, by Elizabeth Reynolds, administratrix, against the Burgess Sulphite Fibre Company. There was a judgment for plaintiff after overruling defendant's motion for nonsuit, and defendant brings exceptions. Exceptions sustained.

Crawford D. Hening and Henry F. Hollis, for plaintiff.

Orville D. Baker and George F. Rich, for defendant.

WALKER, J. On the afternoon of April 9, 1899, the plaintiff's intestate, Reynolds, was killed in the defendant's engine room. Reynolds was an assistant engineer, whose duty it was to assist the principal engineer, Rankin, in operating several of the defendant's engines. He had been at work in this capacity for about 20 days, and had had considerable experience as a locomotive engineer. He was regarded as a competent man for the work. On the day of the accident, a few minutes before 6 o'clock, he was found lying on the floor, with his head between the governor wheel of an engine and the crank case, and his body extended into the room at an angle of about 45 degrees with the side of the engine. His feet were nearly opposite the manholes which opened into the crank case. There was a severe wound upon the left side of his head, and blood upon the inside rim of the governor wheel and on one of the governor weights. He died in a minute or two after he was found. No one saw him at the time he received his fatal injury, but it is plainly evident from the testimony that the immediate cause of his death was a blow on the head from a revolving governor weight. The engine in question was a Westinghouse, single-acting, compound engine. It was used to furnish power in connection with or auxiliary to a water power. The two powers were thus utilized by means of a rigid coupling, which could not be readily disconnected. A friction clutch is sometimes used for this purpose, which allows the engineer to instantly disconnect the water power whenever there is occasion to do so. It was claimed that the defendant was negligent in connecting the water power with the steam power by a rigid coupling. The mechanism of the engine was such that when the water power was used there was a liability that it would "drag" the engine; that is, if the water power exceeded the power produced by the engine, the effect would be to weaken the high-pressure connecting rod and strap, which were not intended to sustain power applied in both directions, as in the case of a double-acting engine. A few minutes before the accident, Reynolds and Rankin started up the engine, the water power and steam power being applied at the same time. After the machinery had got about up to speed, an unusual pounding was heard inside the crank case, and after two or three minutes there was a crash, resembling the breaking of iron. There was evidence that when the engine was pounding, but before the final crash, Reynolds was standing back of the engine, near the governor wheel, engaged in conversation with a fellow workman named Mitchell. They heard two extra-loud knocks, when Mitchell, at the request of Rankin, hastened away to have the water wheels shut off. Rankin, whose position at the throttle prevented him from seeing Reynolds, turned off the steam about the time the crash occurred; and very soon thereafter he went behind the engine, and found Reynolds in the position above described. The two manhole covers were forced out, and the casing was broken, though the broken parts were not thrown into the room. The high-pressure connecting rod and strap were broken, and had fallen into the crank case. This rod, when in position, was opposite the left-hand manhole. If a different coupling had been used, the breaking of the strap might have been avoided. The governor weight at its highest point was about 4 1/2 feet above the floor, and about 2 feet back from the foundation of the engine. It projects a little beyond the rim of the wheel in its revolutions. In leaving the room from the back of the engine, one would naturally go out by the governor wheel. There was ample room for this purpose back of the engine, and the space was well lighted. There was evidence that there was oil on Reynolds' trousers and on the floor after the accident. It also appeared that there were oil and water in the prank case, which extended up to within 2 inches of the bottom of the manholes.

Upon these evidentiary facts, the plaintiff claims that the jury were warranted in finding that the defendant's alleged negligence in maintaining the rigid coupling was the proximate cause of Reynolds' death. There was evidence that such a method of connecting auxiliary steam power with water power as was adopted by the defendant was improper and dangerous, in that it was liable to "drag" the engine, and create a strain upon the strap which it was not intended to sustain, and that the breaking of the internal parts of the engine at the time of the accident may have been due to this cause. If these deductions are sound, it was still necessary for the plaintiff to show by competent evidence a causal connection between the negligence of the defendant and the injury sustained by the deceased. The defendant's alleged negligence may have caused or resulted in the breaking of the strap, and the consequent destruction of the internal mechanism of the engine. This may be conceded. But the further vital question remains, was that negligence the cause, also, of Reynolds' death? The solution of this question rests almost entirely upon circumstantial evidence. No one saw him when he received the fatal blow. It is apparent, however, that in some way his head came in contact with the revolving governor weight, the impact of which was the immediate cause of his death. This fact is not open to serious doubt. But how he happened to get into the somewhat peculiar position he must have been in when his head was struck by the governor weight is, upon the evidence, a matter of speculation and doubt. Was it a natural result of the defendant's...