72 N.J.L. 171 | N.J. | 1905
The plaintiff in error, a minor, was a workman in the employ of the defendant company. While so employed he was. injured by a discharge of steam from the boilers of ’the engines used in the work of the factory. The steam was purposely discharged during .the. noon hour, while the engines were not in operation.
To recover damages for his injury, this action was brought. At the close of the evidence produced by the plaintiff the trial judge directed a nonsuit, and this writ of error raises the question whether, in so doing, there was reversible error.
The evidence before the'trial judge, when his direction was given, exhibited the following facts:
The building in which tire defendant company conducted its work extended from Magnolia avenue, along Division street, nearly to the Central railroad of New Jersey. Back from the main building, in a westerly direction, was a wing, along the line of the railroad and back of the main building also, and nearly in its centre was an extension containing the boilers used in the generation of steam. Back of the boiler-room was a coal-bin, in which the coal used was stored. The distance between the above-mentioned wing and the boiler-room was about fifty-seven feet. The factory site was enclosed by a fep.ce, and at the southwest corner was a pair of gates, through which coal cars from the Central railroad were drawn on a switch into the company’s land, to the coal-bin at the rear of the boiler-room.
The usual entrance for those who worked in the factory was by a door in another wing of the main .building, extending on Magnolia avenue. That door opened into a passage in which was a time-clock. Each workman was required, when coming in, to touch a button having his number on it, and thereby automatically register the time at which he went to work. He was also required to register the time at which he left at noon, and the time at which he returned after the noon hour. That passage led to the main building and afforded access for the workmen to their several places of
At the time the plaintiff received the injury for which he sought compensation he had been absent at the noon hour and had returned. He entered the gates last mentioned and proceeded toward the door in the wing, intending, as he says, to there enter the factory and pass through the main building to the passage and the time-clock, to register his time. • On his way to the door he perceived something glittering upon the ground near the boiler-room and the coal-bin. He says it was like a ten-cent piece, and he went to pick it up, but found that it was a bit of tin. As he went to start off, he says, “the steam hit me.”
The direction for a nonsuit was rested by the trial judge upon two grounds — first, that the company owed no duty to plaintiff respecting his safety at the spot at which he was injured; and second, that the daily discharge of the steam from the blow-off pipe was an obvious danger, which could and would have been observed by the plaintiff, and the risk of which he must be considered to have assumed.
The duty of the master to take reasonable care that the places in which his workmen are required to work are reasonably safe is involved. The plaintiff was not actually at work, but obviously the master’s duty extends to providing reasonably safe access to the place in which the workman is to work. The applicability of this doctrine is not 'contested. The only question is whether it extends so as to make the master liable under the circumstances above stated.
If the injury to plaintiff had been inflicted by the escape of steam while he was passing from the southwest gates to
The judgment before us must therefore be affirmed.