Case Name: DILLON v. MATTHEWS SLATE CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1912-03-06
Citations: 134 N.Y.S. 365
Docket Number: 
Parties: DILLON v. MATTHEWS SLATE CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 134
Pages: 365–369

Head Matter:
DILLON v. MATTHEWS SLATE CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.
March 6, 1912.)
Master and Servant (§ 150 )—Injuries to Servant—Blasting—Instructions.
Plaintiff, a workman in a quarry, was directed to make an “air shot.” Plaintiff knew how to make such a shot, and prepared and fired two such shots which failed to break the rock. Thereupon, on his own responsibility, he obtained a stick of dynamite and attempted to insert it in the bore. It stuck, and, finding that he could not push it in with, a wooden stick, he took an iron bar and jammed the dynamite so hard that it exploded and inflicted the injuries complained of. Held, that defendant was not negligent in failing to instruct plaintiff with reference to the manner of making air shots of which plaintiff had knowledge, nor with reference to the use of dynamite which he was not directed to use.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§ 297, 299-301, 305-307; Dec. Dig. § 150.*]
Betts, J„ dissenting.
Appeal from Trial Term, Albany County.
Action by Patrick Dillon against the Matthews Slate Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, and from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial, defendant appeals. Reversed, and new trial granted.
Argued before SMITH, P. J., and KELLOGG, HOUGHTON, and BETTS, JJ.
Douglas & Gordon (Edward W. Douglas, of counsel), for appellant.
A. Page Smith, for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff was injured while blasting in defendant's quarry. He was directed to make what is termed an "air shot," which is made by leaving an air chamber between the powder and the wadding. The negligence upon which the plaintiff's recovery is predicated! is lack of instruction to the plaintiff as to the manner of making such shot.
The recovery cannot be sustained on such ground. The plaintiff himself testified that he knew how an air shot was made, and that he was not making such a shot when he was injured, but was attempting, without being instructed so to do, to make a blast of an entirely different kind. He prepared and fired one air shot which failed to break the rock, and then prepared another, which also failed. Thereupon, on his own responsibility, he obtained a stick of dynamite and attempted to insert it in the bore. It stuck in the boring, and finding he could not push it with a wooden stick, he took an iron bar and jammed the dynamite so hard that it exploded and inflicted the injuries for which he has recovered.
The plaintiff had been about the 'quarry long enough presumably to know that hitting dynamite confined in a boring with an iron bar was likely to explode it. Even if he didl not know this fact, the defendant is not responsible for failing to instruct him because the plaintiff was doing something on his own responsibility and contrary to the instructions of the defendant's superintendent, which were that he make an air shot which was wholly made with powder and not with dynamite.
The defendant therefore was not responsible for failing to instruct the plaintiff as to the manner of making an air shot, because the plaintiff knew how to make it. It was not responsible for failing to instruct the plaintiff with respect to the use of dynamite, because it gave him no directions to use dynamite in making the blast.
It follows that the order and judgment must be reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.