Rummell v. Dillworth, Porter & Co., Ltd.
| Citation | 2 A. 355,111 Pa.St. 343 |
| Parties | RUMMELL v. DILLWORTH, PORTER & Co., Limited. |
| Decision Date | 04 January 1886 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania |
111 Pa.St. 343
RUMMELL
v.
DILLWORTH, PORTER & Co., Limited.1
SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA.
Filed January 4, 1886.
Error to common pleas, Allegheny county.
Case, by George Rummell, Jr., now by George Rummell, Sr., administrator of his estate, against Dillworth, Porter & Co., Limited, for damages for injuries incurred in their employment. Defendants owned and operated a spike-mill. Plaintiff was employed by a roller boss to act as dragger down. His duty was to drag heated pieces or billets of old iron rails out of a furnace, and place them, a few feet distant, in a train of rollers, (10 pairs,) by which they were reduced to spikes. This train of rollers, from the second pair, was protected on the sides by guard-boards, but the cog-wheels of the head pair were unguarded. Between the rollers were upright iron bars, connected at the top by a ring, called "gates," through which the billets had to pass. When a billet stuck, it was the custom, as was testified, for the dragger down, if the roller boss was not present, to reach over the cogs and unlock the gates, by slipping off the ring by a pair of tongs, until the billet had passed through, and then relocking them by drawing the gate-rods together with his hands, and replacing the ring,—an operation requiring skill and speed. It was in doing this that plaintiff was caught in the cogs and injured, and for which he, and, after his death, his father, brought this suit. On motion of defendants' counsel the court entered a nonsuit and judgment, which it refused to take off, whereupon plaintiff took this writ.
A. M. Watson, for plaintiff in error.
Employers are bound to provide ordinarily safe appliances and machinery. Railroad v. Sentmeyer, 92 Pa. St. 280; Baker v. Railroad, 95 Pa. St. 211; McKee v. Bidwell, 74 Pa. St. 218. The plaintiff is entitled to every inference of fact which the jury might draw from the evidence. Maynes v. Atwater, 88 Pa. St. 497.
John Dalzell and William R. Blair, for defendants in error.
The plaintiff failed to show negligence on part of defendants; he was hurt outside of his line of duty, or, if it was his duty, he accepted the risks. A master is not an insurer. Payne v. Reese, 12 Wkly. Notes Cas. 97; Mansfield Co. v. McEnery, 91 Pa. St. 185; Railroad v. Sentmeyer, supra; Brown v. Byroads, 47 Ind. 435; McGlynn v. Brodie, 31 Cal. 376.
CLARK, J. The defendants, Dillworth, Porter & Co., Limited, are the owners of a spike-mill in the city of Pittsburgh. The plaintiff was, at
the time of the injury complained of, an operative or laborer in that mill. He was employed by William Richards, the roller boss, and was paid by him, but whether he was directly in the defendant's employ, or indirectly as the assistant of Richards, he may be treated as their employe. He was engaged in the work of the defendants, upon their machinery, and the defendants were themselves operating the mill. The right of the roller boss to employ assistants is clearly shown; and as it does not appear that he was an independent contractor, it is unimportant that the amount of his compensation was measured by the number of tons manufactured. The plaintiff was not a trespasser; he was in the rightful discharge of the duties of a valid employment. The relation of master and servant is fairly inferable from the proofs, and the defendants are therefore bound to the performance of all the duties, and are entitled to the protection which that relation affords. The plaintiff entered the defendants' service on Tuesday, March 6, 1881, and received the injury at 4 o'clock of the following Friday morning. He was 17 years of age, and had no previous experience in the business in which he was employed. His duty was to drag heated billets of iron from the furnace, and to place them in a train of 10 pairs of rollers, by means of which they were finally manufactured into spikes. He was designated or known in the mill as a "dragger down." Two draggers down served each train of rollers, and they were required to move with rapidity; the heat and exertion were such that the "turn" did not exceed one hour; and when the turn was over, another pair supplied their places, and the work was continued by alternation. The rollers were kept in motion by a combination of cog-wheels at the end, extending all along the sides of the train. When the billet was placed in the first pair, it would, in some instances, stick fast, and an appliance called a "gate" must be opened to allow it to pass through; this gate was between the first and second pair of rollers. The person operating it was obliged to step quickly to the space between the ends of the first and second pair of rollers, where the cog-wheels were in rapid motion, and, with a pair of tongs, provided for the purpose, throw a ring from the top of two iron rods, extending perpendicularly above the rolls. The billet passing into the second pair of rollers, the gate must be closed at once, in order to admit another, which, owing to this unusual delay, was in waiting. To close the gate, it was necessary to reach over the cog-wheels, and, with both hands, catch the gate-rods, draw them together, and replace the ring. To avoid delay, and to prevent injury to the rollers, this movement must be executed quickly. The gate was, in general, opened by the roller boss, or one of his assistants, but sometimes, when they were absent, or otherwise engaged, it was opened by the draggers down, one of whom, by the very nature of their employment, was always present. As a protection against the cog-wheels along this train of rollers, a guard-rail, 12 inches in width, had been erected; extending from the second pair of rollers to the foot of the train; but the rail did not reach to cover the cog-wheels of the two pairs of rollers at the head, between which the gate was to be opened and shut. These were all exposed; no protection of any kind was here provided.
At the time of the injury, George Rummell, Jr., the plaintiff, placed a heated...
To continue reading
Request your trial