Wallace v. Standard Oil Co.

• Decision Date: 06 March 1895
• Docket Number: 9,168.
• Citation: 66 F. 260
• Parties: WALLACE v. STANDARD OIL CO.
• Court: United States Circuit Court, District of Indiana

66 F. 260

WALLACE v. STANDARD OIL CO.

No. 9,168.

United States Circuit Court, D. Indiana.

March 6, 1895

Stansifer & Baker, for plaintiff.

Elmer E. Stevenson and Waltman & Brown, for defendant.

BAKER District Judge.

The complaint charges that the defendant was engaged at Columbus Ind., in the business of handling transporting, and selling coal oil, turpentine, gasoline, and other inflammable oils, and occupied for that purpose a building of three rooms, two of which were above and one was below; that one of the upper rooms was 10 feet square, and was used an an office, and contained oil cans, small tanks oily working clothes, a cot with rugs and quilts, an office desk and stove; that it had a window on the east side, and a door and a window on the north side; that the floor thereof was 10 feet above the ground on the east side, and 2 feet above the ground on the north side; that the door had a defective lock, and the north window was shut up and closed by a large and heavy office desk, which had been placed against it; that the plaintiff's son, George W. Barcus aged 17 years, was employed by the defendant in handling the oils; that nearly all of such work was done on the outside of the building, and by him; that on the 30th day of March, 1894, which was a damp, cold, and chilly day, Barcus was so handling the oils under the direction of W. M. Wallace, who was the agent of the defendant in charge of its business at Columbus, Ind.; that the clothes of Barcus became saturated therewith, and, being cold and chilly, he was directed by Wallace to go into the office, and warm himself; that there was a hot fire in the office stove, which had been made by Wallace; that Barcus went into the office, and closed the door; that while in the office his clothing and other articles therein caught fire from the stove; that Barcus endeavored to escape through the door, but was unable to do so, on account of the defective lock, by means of which the door had become fastened and could not be opened from the inside; that he thereupon leaped through and from the east window to the ground below; that in doing so he was cut by the window glass, jarred and bruised, and that he died on the day following, as a result of his burned, bruised, and wounded condition. It is further averred that Barcus was ignorant and inexperienced, and wholly unacquainted with the inflammable character of the oils that he was engaged in handling for the defendant; that he had been told by Wallace that there was not more danger in going to the hot stove with his clothes saturated therewith than if his clothes were wet with water; that Barcus believed and relied on these statements; that the bad character of the lock was known to both Wallace and Barcus; that Wallace had promised Barcus to repair the same, and Barcus relied on the promise of Wallace to do so; and that Barcus was wholly without fault in the premises. The defendant demurs to the complaint because it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against it.

The complaint is in a single...