Rivers v. City of Gainesville

• Decision Date: 23 July 1932
• Citation: 107 Fla. 774,143 So. 235
• Parties: RIVERS v. CITY OF GAINESVILLE.[*]
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

143 So. 235

107 Fla. 774

RIVERS v. CITY OF GAINESVILLE.^[*]

Florida Supreme Court, Division A.

July 23, 1932

Error to Circuit Court, Alachua County; A. V. Long, Judge.

Action by Fannie Rivers against the City of Gainesville. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.

Reversed and new trial awarded.

COUNSEL Fred J. Hampton and B. F. Jordan, both of Gainesville, for plaintiff in error.

Baxter & Clayton and W. B. Watson, Jr., all of Gainesville, for defendant in error.

OPINION

BUFORD C.J.

In this case Fannie Rivers, a widow, sued the city of Gainesville for damages occasioned by the wrongful death of her husband. The proof was that the city of Gainesville was engaged in generating for sale electric current; that in the production of this current it used certain boilers; that the husband of plaintiff, Thomas Rivers, was employed by the city to work in and about the boilers; that his duties required him to clean and repair the boilers; that while he was in one of the boilers at work hot steam was turned into the boiler by a fireman also employed by the defendant; that that by the turning in of the hot steam into the boiler Thomas Rivers was scalded and burned to the extent that he died from the effects thereof.

It is shown that the boilers were connected up so that the steam line could be cut off so as to disconnect any boiler in which work was being done so as to make such boiler a safe place in which to work. The cock used to turn the steam line off and on, which steam line connected the steam with the boiler in which Rivers was working, was found turned on immediately after the accident occurred. There appears to have been no defect in the cock. It was the duty of the fireman or other person handling the steam to ascertain whether or not any person was at work in any boiler before turning on the steam to such boiler. If the fireman had performed this duty, he would necessarily have found Rivers at work in the boiler and would not have turned on the steam unless he intended to kill Rivers. If he had found Rivers in the boiler, it then would have become his duty to cut off the steam line entering that boiler so that the steam could not enter the boiler when turned on.

This case clearly falls within the purview of section 4971 et seq., R. G. S., section 7058 et seq., C. G. L., and especially under section 4973, R. G. S., section 7060, C. G. L. The plaintiff made out a prima facie case under the pleadings. The case nearest in point to the one which we have under consideration, of any of those which we have found, is that of Keiley v. The Allianca (C. C.) 44 F. 97. The headnote is:

'Where the master of a steam-ship employs a contractor to clean the inside of her boilers, the ship is liable for injuries suffered by the contractor's employee, while engaged in the work, by the negligent escape of steam and hot water into the boiler, whether those in charge of the steam let it escape or it was done by some meddling stranger in consequence of the negligent supervision of those in charge.'

The appellee here contends that there is a probability that Rivers left the steam cock open when he went into the boiler for the purpose of letting out water and sediment which was in the boiler. This assumption is met by the proof that another...