Swiercz v. Illinois Steel Co.

• Citation: 231 Ill. 456,83 N.E. 168
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Decision Date: 17 December 1907
• Parties: SWIERCZ v. ILLINOIS STEEL CO.

231 Ill. 456

83 N.E. 168

SWIERCZ

v.ILLINOIS STEEL CO.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 17, 1907.

Appeal from Appellate Court, First District, on Appeal from Circuit Court, Cook County; L. C. Ruth, Judge.

Action by Joseph Swiercz against the Illinois Steel Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, affirmed by the Appellate Court, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.Knapp, Haynie & Campbell, G. R. Call, and William Beye, for appellant.

N. L. Protrowski and Cyrus J. Wood, for appellee.

Joseph Swiercz sued the Illinois Steel Company in an action on the case in the circuit court of Cook county to recover damages for personal injury. The declaration alleged that the defendant was the owner of a rolling mill in the city of Chicago and employed the plaintiff as a common laborer, and it was his duty to do everything which the defendant directed him to do. Among other things, he was ordered by the defendant to unfasten a certain cover or lid of a mold which contained iron or steel that had been molten and was in liquid form, the cover being secured to the mold by iron bands; that at the time the plaintiff was ordered to unfasten the cover the defendant knew, or by the exercise of reasonable care could have known, that its contents were in a heated and explosive condition and were not sufficiently cooled to be safely uncovered, and knew of the danger of uncovering the mold in that condition; that the plaintiff did not know of said danger, and it was the duty of the defendant to warn him, but the defendant, not regarding its duty in this behalf, negligently, carelessly, and willfully failed to warn the plaintiff, and negligently and willfully ordered him to unfasten said cover, and while unfastening the same in obedience to said order, and while in the exercise of due care and diligence for his own safety, the molten contents of said receptable exploded, striking the body of the plaintiff, and severely burning and injuring him. A trial resulted in a verdict and judgment against defendant for $2,800, which has been affirmed by the Appellate Court, and a further appeal is prosecuted to this court.

DUNN, J. (after stating the facts as above).

Appellant insists that the court should have sustained its motion to instruct the jury to find it not guilty. The plaintiff had been in defendant's employ for many years, and for four years had worked as a slagman at the place where these molds were filled. The molds were about six feet high, and each held about four tons. They rested on small cars which ran upon a track past the apparatus where they were filled with the molten metal. After a mold was filled it was covered with a plate placed on top of it and held down firmly by a bar across the top of the mold, held by lugs on either side of the mold, and tightened by a wedge between the bar and the plate. Another mold was then filled and capped in same way, and then a third. The three were then permitted to remain undisturbed for a time to partially cool. If opened too soon there was danger of an explosion of the molten metal. When sufficiently cooled the caps of the molds were taken off an the molds removed. The work of capping and uncapping the molds was done by men stationed on a platform alongside the track on which ran the cars carrying the molds. It was also a part of their duty to chip off from the mold any of the metal which ran over and adhered to the sides. Metal which remained in the ladle after a mold was filled was poured out beside the track. It was called ‘slag,’ as was also the metal scraped off the molds, and laborers called ‘slagmen’ were employed to place this slag on cars to be taken away. During the time the plaintiff had been a slagman he had been sometimes called up to the platform when some of the men were absent to do the work of the capper, that is, to chip the slag off the molds and to cap and uncap the molds. He had done this many times. On the day of his injury the plaintiff was thus working on the platform all day. About 5 o'clock in the evening three molds had been filled, capped, and left to cool. Thomas Moore was the superintendent, and the plaintiff testified that Moore told him to take the hammer and uncover the molds, and do it quick. Plaintiff also testified that he did not know how long the molds were filled before he got hurt; that when they were being filled he was chipping other molds. He obeyed the order, and in uncovering the third mold was injured by the explosion of the metal.

This evidence tended to show that the mold required time to cool; that the plaintiff did not know how long it had been cooling; that his superior gave him an order to uncover the mold and do it quickly; that while he was obeying this order, the metal, because it had not had sufficient time to cool, exploded and injured the plaintiff. Mr. Moore testified that he timed the heat; that he saw the clock the time the last heat was poured; that he went away and came back in 10 or 12 minutes; that the steel had been in the molds long enough; that he asked the plaintiff if everything was all right, but gave him no order. While the evidence was thus contradictory, yet on this motion to direct a verdict the court does not weigh evidence, but is required to take the view...