Gunn v. Lackawanna Steel Co.

Headnote

Gunn v. Lackawanna Steel Co., 177 App. Div. 277 , affirmed.

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered April 3, 1917, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon an order of the court at a Trial Term setting aside a verdict in favor of plaintiff and granting a motion for a dismissal of the complaint in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been' sustained by plaintiff through the negligence of defendant, his' employer. The plaintiff was a blacksmith employed by the defendant in its forge shop connected with its steel manufacturing plant in the city of Lackawanna, in the county of Erie.' In the early hours of the morning, while the plaintiff was engaged in the use of a

steam hammer and was holding the heated' end of a bar of steel between the dies of the hammer by means of tongs clutched to the cold end of the bar, as claimed by him, at a stroke of the hammer the bar and tongs were thrown back, and the handles of the tongs penetrated his right leg just above the knee. In the wound thus caused blood poisoning developed and the leg was amputated above the knee. The complaint alleged that the steam hammer leaked steam; that it leaked water, which ran down and came in contact with the hot metal, and thereby produced clouds of steam; that the dies were not properly set, in that the upper die overlapped the lower die; that the forge shop in the locality of this steam hammer, where the plaintiff was at work, was inadequately lighted; that the defendant was negligent in failing to give plaintiff a safe place in which to work, and to keep the same in safe condition, and in failing to inspect the same from time to time, and to warn and instruct the plaintiff concerning the condition of the dies, and to furnish the plaintiff with a suitable and safe steam hammer. The answer admitted the accident, but denied the alleged negligence of the defendant, and averred that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence and assumed the risk of the accident.