The Willem Van Driel, Sr.

• Decision Date: 01 May 1918
• Docket Number: 1552.
• Citation: 252 F. 35
• Parties: THE WILLEM VAN DRIEL, SR. v. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. et al. NAAM LOOZE VENNOOT SCHAP, S. S. WILLEM VAN DRIEL, SR.,
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

252 F. 35

THE WILLEM VAN DRIEL, SR.

NAAM LOOZE VENNOOT SCHAP, S. S. WILLEM VAN DRIEL, SR., v. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. et al.

No. 1552.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

May 1, 1918

Albert C. Ritchie, of Baltimore, Md., and J. Parker Kirlin, of New York City (John M. Woolsey and Charles R. Hickox, both of New York City, Stuart S. Janney, of Baltimore, Md., and Robert W Williams, of Washington, D.C., on the brief), for appellant and cross-appellee.

Shirley Carter, of Baltimore, Md. (Bernard Carter & Sons, of Baltimore, Md., on the brief), for appellees and cross-appellant.

Before KNAPP and WOODS, Circuit Judges, and CONNOR, District Judge.

WOODS Circuit Judge.

Grain elevator No. 3, with the capacity of about 1,000,000 bushels was located on a wharf in the Canton district of the port of Baltimore. On June 13, 1916, the ship Welbeck Hall, on its east side, and the ship Willem Van Driel, on its west side were loading grain. About 2 o'clock in the afternoon, after a large part of the cargo of each ship had been loaded, a great explosion occurred in the elevator, which was immediately followed by a fire. Both ships were seriously injured and a number of persons killed.

On the 22d of January, 1917, a libel was filed on behalf of the ship Willem Van Driel and its owner against the elevator company and the Pennsylvania Railroad Company alleging: (1) Damages from the fire to the ship and cargo in the aggregate sum of $379,142.25; (2) negligence in the operation of the elevator which caused the fire; (3) liability of the elevator company, and also of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, as the real owner and operator of the elevator, for the damages, and for such sums as the ship is liable for to the owners of tugs for salvage services rendered at the time of the fire.

After taking a great mass of testimony the District Court found these facts on the question of negligence: The long belts, to which are attached buckets conveying the grain, are liable to become choked; the consequent stopping of a belt while the pulley to which it is attached continues to move causes friction, which will soon break the belt and produce great heat. Unless the friction is promptly relieved by stopping the pulley, the heat may be so great as to cause ignition. Due care to prevent fire required that some means should be provided to stop quickly the revolving pulley in the upper part of the elevator, upon discovery of the choke by the operatives at the foot of the leg through which the belt moved. Originally, the means adopted in this elevator was a rope attached to the pulley, by which the operatives on the lower floor could detach the pulley and stop the conveying belt as soon as it became choked. This instrumentality was abandoned, and reliance placed on communications to the operatives on the upper floors by speaking tubes. To connect with the machinery floor on which the pulleys were placed, such messages had to be relayed from the next floor below. The machinery room above was 240 feet long; and the only regular attendant on that floor was an oiler, whose duties sometimes required him to be absent, attending to duties elsewhere. Owing to his absence on this occasion, the tube message was not received by him on the machinery floor, and there was delay of about 2 minutes in getting the information to the machinery floor, by a messenger sent from the floor below. The message that No. 3 belt was choked was understood by Aires, a mill expert on the machinery floor, to refer to No. 2 belt. This mistake caused a further delay. Aires called through a hole in the floor to Smith, the operator who had sent the message, that No. 2 was all right. Upon being informed that the trouble was with No. 3 Aires, with Lucas, the messenger, moved the lever intended to disconnect the pulley controlling the belt, but without effect. Looking into No. 3, he saw smoke. Afterwards a scantling was used in the unsuccessful effort to stop the large wheel which drove the pulley. Aires then walked about 120 feet to a telephone, where he could communicate with the engineer, and ordered all the machinery stopped. This order was promptly obeyed, but it was about 2 1/2 minutes after the power was shut off before the machinery stopped. Immediately thereafter No. 3 belt broke and fell. The engine was then started again on the supposition that all danger was over. Very soon afterwards the fire and explosion occurred.

From this condensed statement of the facts, considered in the light of ordinary knowledge of physical law, it is evident that friction produced by a choked belt was liable to make heat sufficient to ignite explosive dust, always present in an elevator, and the dry wooden structures through which the belt ran. It seems equally clear that in the presence of such a peril mechanical means should have been provided to stop the running of the pulley against a choked belt, if such mechanical means could be provided at reasonable expense, and that, if excessive expense or other causes prevented the use of such mechanical device, a speaking tube or telephone communication should have been provided from the operative at the foot of the belt to an operative at...