#### M. W. OVERTON v. FARMERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY et al.

(Filed 27 February, 1929.)

Master and Servant — Master’s Inability for Injuries to Servant — Warning and Instructing Servant.

Where there is evidence that a totally inexperienced employee is instructed by the superintendent of a manufacturing company to assist another, an experienced employee, in putting a blow pipe in a boiler for the purpose of its repair, and upon the assurance of safety and under immediate direction of the other employee he taps with a hammer a certain pipe, and suddenly steam envelopes him, causing the injury in suit: Held, sufficient to take the case to the jury upon the issue of the defendant’s actionable negligence. White v. Power Go., 151 N. C., 356 distinguished. Fowler v. Oondwit Co., 192 N. C., 14, cited and applied.

Civil action, before Small, J., at December Term, 1928, of Gates.

The defendants operated a sawmill with three boilers, each incased separately in a big wall. The incasement had a door or opening at the rear of the boiler through which workmen could enter and repair the boiler or remove ashes and cinders. An iron pipe descended from the bottom of the boiler two or three feet to the level of the ground, fitting into an elbow projecting out of the back wall. The pipe was intended to relieve the boiler of scales and other accumulations. The pipe was also intended as a means of blowing out the boiler. The horizontal part of the pipe was disconnected, leaving the descending or perpendicular part *671and tbe elbow suspended from tbe boiler. On tbe morning of 12 June, 1926, plaintiff was directed by tbe superintendent to assist in putting a blower pipe on tbe boiler. Tbe plaintiff said: “I bad not bad any experience in working around boilers; I bad never fired a day or worked around a boiler a day, and bad bad no experience in repairing or working on boilers. . . . Mr. Worthington told me to go to tbe sbop and belp Mr. Manseau put in a blower pipe to tbe boiler. I asked bim if tbe boiler was clear, and be told me that it was — that it broke down about 2 o’clock and blowed out. I bad nothing to do with tbe boiler. No other instructions were given to me by any one with respect to bow to do tbe work or tbe dangers, if any, involved in it, and I bad no knowledge of tbe dangers incidental to tbe work. I told Mr. Manseau that Mr. Worthington bad sent me to belp put in a blower pipe, and be said, ‘All right,’ and I said, 'Is tbe boiler clear?’ and be said, 'Yes, she broke down about 2 o’clock.’ ... I crawled through tbe bole left in tbe brick wall under tbe boiler. I was in tbe bole up to across tbe middle of my thighs. My feet were sticking out of tbe bole in tbe brick wall. . . . When I got to where I could reach it with a hammer John said: 'Touch it with a hammer and see if it is loose,’ and I touched it and it was loose, and I tapped it tbe next time a little bit harder, and tbe steam and hot water just covered me up that quick; it was just like a gun fire underneath there. I didn’t know what happened for a second. Tbe steam shot out like a gun-shot and bit me in tbe face and eyes and bead and breast, and I pulled my cap down to protect my eyes.”

The injuries sustained by plaintiff were serious and permanent. Tbe issues were answered in bis fa.vor, and tbe jury assessed tbe damages at $10,000.

From judgment upon tbe verdict tbe defendants appealed.

Gosten & Gasten and Phringhaus & Hall for plaintiff.

A. P. Godwin and Ward & Grimes for defendants.

Biiogden, J.

Tbe boiler was out of repair, and tbe plaintiff, a workman, having no knowledge of boilers, was directed by bis foreman to assist in making tbe necessary repairs. Tbe plaintiff testified that be was directed to strike tbe descending pipe of tbe boiler with a hammer, and that as a result thereof a large volume of hot steam was released upon bis body. Moreover, there was evidence in behalf of tbe plaintiff that be was given positive assurance by bis foreman that tbe boiler contained no steam.

This testimony, which was accepted by tbe jury, takes tbe case out of tbe principle announced in White v. Power Co., 151 N. C., 356, 66 S. E., 210, upon which tbe defendants rely.

*672Tbe liability of tbe employer in tbe case at bar is governed by tbe principles announced in Fowler v. Conduit Co., 192 N. C., 14, 133 S. E., 188, to tbe effect that liability results where tbe employer gives assurance of safety or where tbe work is done under bis supervision and in accordance with bis instructions. Atkins v. Madry, 174 N. C., 187, 93 S. E., 744; McKinney v. Adams, 184 N. C., 565, 115 S. E., 51; Hairston v. Cotton Mills, 188 N. C., 557, 125 S. E., 124.

No error.