The Atchison v. Kingscott

• Decision Date: 07 June 1902
• Docket Number: 12,646
• Citation: 69 P. 184,65 Kan. 131
• Parties: THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY v. JOHN C. KINGSCOTT
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

69 P. 184

65 Kan. 131

THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY v. JOHN C. KINGSCOTT

No. 12,646

Supreme Court of Kansas

June 7, 1902

Decided January, 1902.

Error from Wyandotte court of common pleas; W. G. HOLT, judge.

Judgment affirmed.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

1. RAILROADS -- Injury of Employee -- Duty of Company -- Safe Appliances and Inspection. It is the duty of a railway company to its employees engaged in emptying oil from barrels by the use of compressed air to provide barrels that are reasonably sound and in a safe condition for such use and also to use due care in inspecting the condition of the barrels before they are filled with oil.

2. RAILROADS -- Evidence of Care in Inspection -- Usual Practice. Evidence that the care used in inspection is that usually exercised by a railway company is not conclusive upon the proposition that due care has been used by the company.

3. RAILROADS -- Delegation of Duty to Inspect -- Liability of Company. The duties of inspection and of furnishing its employees safe instrumentalities to carry on its operations devolve upon the company itself, and those who perform these duties for the company represent it, and for their negligence the company is responsible under the rule of the common law.

A. A. Hurd, and O. J. Wood, for plaintiff in error.

H. G. Pope, and L. F. Bird, for defendant in error.

JOHNSTON, J. DOSTER, C.J., CUNNINGHAM, ELLIS, JJ., concurring.

OPINION

JOHNSTON, J.:

This was an action by John C. Kingscott against the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from the explosion of an oil barrel. Kingscott was employed by the railway company in an oil house at Argentine, and while emptying coal-oil from a barrel into a tank by means of compressed-air pressure the barrel burst, and portions of it struck him upon the face and body, destroyed an eye, and inflicted other severe injuries. In his petition he alleged that the railway company was negligent in furnishing an old and defective barrel; in failing properly to inspect the barrel before it was filled with oil; in not warning him of the danger of emptying barrels by the dangerous agency of air pressure, and in failing to furnish him with a safe appliance for emptying the barrels. The railway company answered by alleging that the injuries sustained by Kingscott were the result of his own want of care in emptying the barrels, and were not caused by the negligence of the company.

In submitting the case to the jury, the court eliminated the question of the negligence of the company in furnishing an unsafe appliance for emptying oil barrels and in failing to warn Kingscott of the danger of using compressed air. The questions submitted to the jury were: "Did the company provide a defective barrel, and did it properly inspect the barrel so as to ascertain its fitness for the use to which it was put; was the flow of oil obstructed by burlap or other foreign substance in the barrel, and was Kingscott himself negligent in failing properly to regulate the flow of oil from the barrel?" It appears that oil was emptied from barrels into the tank by means of air pressure, the maximum being eighty pounds to the square inch. On the pipes by which the reservoir was attached to the barrel were valves to regulate the pressure, and on the wall near by was a gauge which registered the amount of pressure being used. The process is to bore a hole in the side of a barrel and connect it with the tank by means of a rubber tube. Another hole is bored into the head of the barrel, which is connected with an air reservoir by a pipe, and the pressure of the air forces the oil out of the barrel and into the tank. In this instance, the plaintiff had made the connections, and the greater part of the oil had been emptied out of the barrel by this method when Kingscott tipped the barrel up so all the oil might flow out, and immediately the explosion occurred from which the injuries resulted. One of the contentions of the plaintiff was that there were burlap and other foreign substances in the barrel which obstructed the flow of the oil, and when the air pressure was applied the barrel necessarily burst. The jury found that the explosion was not caused by the negligence of Kingscott in turning too much air into the barrel, or in failing properly to regulate the air pressure, but that it was caused by the stoppage of the outlet for the oil and the defective head of the barrel. Among other matters, the jury found that Kingscott was only applying from five to twenty pounds of pressure just prior to the explosion, and that that was sufficient to accomplish the purpose. It was also found that the barrel appeared to be sound and in good order before the explosion occurred, and that its unsoundness could...