Overton v. Farmers Manufacturing Co.

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. *672 Tbe 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.