Case Name: Eliza J. Green, as Administratrix de bonis non of Augustus Carter, Deceased, Respondent, v. The Lawrence Cement Company, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1901-01
Citations: 57 A.D. 284
Docket Number: 
Parties: Eliza J. Green, as Administratrix de bonis non of Augustus Carter, Deceased, Respondent, v. The Lawrence Cement Company, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 57
Pages: 284–287

Head Matter:
Eliza J. Green, as Administratrix de bonis non of Augustus Carter, Deceased, Respondent, v. The Lawrence Cement Company, Appellant.
Negligence—failure to supply a safety valve and gouge to a steam pipe—it creates no liability where, a safety latch, if properly used, would have prevented the accident.
In an action to recover damages for the negligent killing of the plaintiff’s intestate, it appeared that the defendant purchased a low pressure engine for use in connection with a high pressure engine; that the steam passed from the cylinder of the high pressure engine through a steam pipe into the steam chest of the low pressure engine, and from there passed into the cylinder of the low ■' pressure engine through two admission valves controlled hy a hook rod, the. hook of which dropped down over the pin on a wrist plate; that if the.rod jumped from the wrist plate, the admission valves would close automatically, and prevent the steam from escaping from the steam chest into the cylinder; that when the pressure had increased beyond the limit of endurance an explosion was inevitable, and that to prevent such an accident the rod was fitted with a safety latch.
It further appeared that an employee of the vendor of the low pressure engine, who superintended its erection, omitted to fasten the safety latch, in consequence of which the hook rod jumped from the wrist plate, and an explosion followed, which resulted in the death of the plaintiff’s intestate, who was an oiler employed by the defendant.
The jury found that the defendant was negligent in omitting to supply a safety valve and gouge in the steam pipe leading from the high to the low pressure engine, and rendered a verdict for the plaintiff.
Held, that as it did not appear that a safety valve, such as was usually placed upon a steam pipe of this character, would have been large enough to have prevented the explosion, or that the engineer would have had time to read the record of the excessive pressure appearing upon the steam gouge before the explosion occurred, negligence could not be imputed to the defendant upon its failure to supply such safety valve;
That as the danger of the explosion was fully guarded against by the safety latch, if properl)'' used, reasonable care did not require the defendant to furnish additional safeguards.
Merwin-and Edwards, JJ., dissented.
Appeal by the defendant, The Lawrence Cement Company, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the cleric of the county of Ulster on- the 15th day of April, 1899, upon the verdict of a jury for- $4,000, and also from an order bearing date the first Monday of April, 1899, entered in said cleric’s office denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.
The action was brought to recover damages by reason of the alleged negligence, of the defendant resulting in the death of the plaintiff’s intestate.
The defendant, a domestic, corporation, engaged in the manufacture of cement, in March, 1897, procured to be' placed in its mill, in Eddyville, N. Y., a new low-pressure engine, to be used in connection with its high-pressure engine, the ’ two constituting what is known as a compound engine. It had contracted for this engine with the Wright Steam Engine Works, of Newburgh, N. Y., who sent Law, a competent mechanic, to superintend its erection and make the proper connections. The steam from the cylinder of the high-pressure engine passed through a steam pipe into the steam chest of the low-pressure engine from which it was admitted into the cylinder by means of two admission valves, controlled, by a hook rod, and so arranged that they dropped back automatically and remained closed except when the hook rod raised them to admit the steam. from the steam chest to the cylinder of the low-pressure engine. The hook of this rod dropped down over a pin on a wrist plate, and to prevent its jumping off the wrist plate there was a safety latch on the bottom of and across the hook which slipped underneath the pin of the wrist plate and into a slot in the hook. If this safety latch is not fastened, the hook rod is liable to jump from the wrist plate, and when it becomes disengaged the admission valves are closed, the steam cannot escape from the steam chest into the cylinder, it continued to be pumped from the high-pressure engine into the steam chest of the low-pressure engine and the pressure raised until the limit of endurance is reached, when an explosion is inevitable.
The new engine was started on Saturday, April 3, 1897, and on . the following Monday, April fifth, it was again started for the purpose of grinding cement in the defendant’s mill. Law was in charge of it. Carter,- the plaintiff’s intestate, was an oiler and had been in that position for two days, having previously been in the employment of the defendant as a laborer. The safety latch of the hook rod was left open by Law, and the engine ran' with this unfastened for a little over two hours, when, in consequence of the safety latch being open, the hook rod jumped the wrist plate and an explosion followed. The end of the steam chest was blown off, struck the live steam pipe above the cylinder, caused a rupture and the plaintiff’s intestate was killed by inhalation of the escaping hot -steam.
A. T. Clearwater, for the appellant. .
Alwah 8. Newoomb, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Smith, J.:
The learned trial judge correctly stated to the jury the legal ' principles upon which this case must stand. If then there be evidence sufficient' to sustain the conclusions which .the jury have reached, this judgment must be affirmed. The negligence found is in the omission of the safety valve and gouge in the steam pipe leading from the high to the low-pressure engine. For the injury caused by such negligence, this plaintiff has recovered.
The finding of the jury that the omission of such a safety valve and steam gouge as were usually, attached to such pipes was negligence cannot, we think, be disturbed. That such valves were usual under such circumstances appears from the plaintiff's evidence and is undisputed. That the death to recover for which this action was brought was caused by such negligence is, however, a claim earnestly . controverted by this defendant.
The plaintiff claims support for this finding in the testimony of Rose and Cooper that if a. safety valve and gouge had been provided, this explosion would not have occurred. But a careful examination of the evidence discloses that both of these witnesses siscnificantly qualified their testimony by the condition " if there had been one in there large enough." The mere statement of such a condition súggests at' once the question whether the safety valves' usually attached to such pipes, were such as would have been " large enough " to have averted this accident; The jiurpose of this safety valve in this pipe was in part tó relieve the backward pressure of the steam and in part to give warning by its hissing sound that the pressure of the steam exceeded the necessary degree. The use of the gouge was simply to indicate to the engineer the amount Of steam pressure in the pipes. The witnesses agreed that the presence of the steam gouge could not have averted this accident, nor could a safety valve by reason of- any warning that it might have given to the engineer. With the jumping of the hook from the wrist plate _ the pressure became tremendous and instantaneous and the record . appearing upon the steam, gouge could hardly have been read before the explosion. This explains the qualified answers given by these witnesses. To have prevented this accident this safety valve attached must have been large enough to have relieved this tremendous pressure of steam. But the record is barren of evidence that the safety valve usually placed upon such pipes is put there or is ever adequate for such purpose. The mere fact that the steam gouge is also attached would indicate that in the working of the engines there might be a gradual increase in pressure beyond the degree required, such as would call for the slackening of the power by the engineer, and that the safety valve usually placed upon such a pipe as well as the steam gouge was for the purpose of warning the engineer of such gradual increase of pressure, and the safety valve had the further purpose of relieving in part therefrom. It is not suggested in the evidence that this safety valve is usually placed there as a precaution against such an accident as here happened. It would seem to be an unnecessary precaution for such a purpose. That danger was fully guarded against by the safety latch, which, if it had been properly used, would have prevented the accident. Reasonable care does not call for a second guard where one furnished affords ample protection with proper use. But we are not left to surmises or to reasoning to determine this question. The testimony of the witness Wright, who appears to be a reputable witness, is to the effect that such a valve as is usually placed upon such pipes would have been wholly inadequate to meet this emergency. He swears: " Had it been there in position and working perfectly at the time of the accident, it would not have prevented the happening of the accident." This evidence stands uncontradicted in the case. The negligence with which the defendant has been charged is in the omission to provide such a safety valve and steam gouge as are usually attached to such pipes. Without proof, therefore, that the failure to provide such guards has caused this accident, the plaintiff has clearly failed to establish her cause of action.
The judgment should, therefore, be reversed.
All concurred, except Merwin and Edwards, JJ., dissenting.
Judgment and order reversed on the law and facts and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide event.