volunteer wire rope co free sample

This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks. The action you just performed triggered the security solution. There are several actions that could trigger this block including submitting a certain word or phrase, a SQL command or malformed data.

This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks. The action you just performed triggered the security solution. There are several actions that could trigger this block including submitting a certain word or phrase, a SQL command or malformed data.

We are proud to announce the release of our sister company, Volunteer Metal Systems’ (VMS) newly designed website. VMS is a leading supplier of engineered systems and metal products for the industrial insulation industry.

The new site has been crafted with a fresh, new, inviting look. Right away you will notice the improved, easy to use navigation and overall functionality. Users will now be able to access the information they need, any time of day. The new site is a destination for discovering the tools and capabilities VMS can design and offer.

Sister Companies Corner-This section of the website will be frequently updated so visitors can stay refreshed on the latest news from the companies under the GLT Companies umbrella. We encourage you to bookmark this page and check back often to stay connected with us.

In the past (pre 19th century), most heavy haulage and lifting needs were met by bulky chains or big ropes made of fiber. In the early 1830’s, a mine in Germany dropped a mine conveyance full of ore to the bottom of their mine and it was found that the heavy chains they were using to haul the conveyance to the surface suffered from work hardening and became severely brittle, leading to its failure.

As time progressed, other nations and people began to experiment with the fabrication of wire rope and, initially, each of them were essentially drawing hot steel through some dyes to create wires which were then laid helically together to form the wire rope. The type of steel that was readily available at the time was the same steel used to create ploughs for agriculture; thus the “Plough Steel” designation was used to denote what grade of steel was used to fabricate the rope.

Improvements were made to the ingredients of Plough Steel that allowed for a higher tensile strength of the wire rope. This new grade was aptly named, “Improved Plough Steel” or I.P.S. for short. Improved plough steel became the de facto steel to be used until it was once again improved upon, to the point where it is actually difficult to find Plough Steel grade wire rope in inventory at a sling shop.

Speaking of improvements made to the already Improved Plough Steel, once the recipe was perfected and it was found that wire rope could be made to have some extra strength. What did the powers that be name this new and improved wire rope…You guessed it, “Extra Improved Plough Steel.” EIPS offers approximately 10-15% increases in tensile strength over the old IPS depending on diameter. The higher tensile strength improves the minimum breaking strength of the wire rope. This, of course, will change the breaking strengths of the rigging mines and other industrial uses. This makes it important to know what type of wire rope your rigging is constructed from. If for example, a worker is referencing a sling chart for minimum breaking strength of a sling they should:

Currently, most rigging shops have transitioned to EIPS or are in the process of doing so. EIPS wire rope should be the standard in a modern day rigging shop and used for rigging such as wire rope slings, winch lines, and wire rope assemblies.

Northern Strands has been a locally owned company for over 50 years. We carry the largest supply of wire rope and rigging in Saskatchewan. Contact us today for a rigging quote or visit our showroom.

Volunteer Firefighting Leave Leave without pay will be granted when an employee who is a volunteer firefighter is called to duty to respond to a fire, natural disaster or medical emergency.

Medical Care Leave Employees may be allowed to use weekly indemnity credits in order to engage in personal preventative medical health and dental care. Permission will not be unreasonably withheld provided adequate notice is given in advance. On request, employees will be required to provide proof of attendance for the preventative medical or dental care concerned.

Volunteer Leave 37.01 Subject to operational requirements as determined by the Employer and with an advance notice of at least five (5) working days, the employee shall be granted, in each fiscal year, one (1) day of leave with pay to work as a volunteer for a charitable or community organisation or activity, other than for activities related to the Government of Canada Workplace Charitable Campaign. The leave will be scheduled at times convenient to both the employee and the Employer. Nevertheless, the Employer shall make every reasonable effort to grant the leave at such times as the employee may request.

Extended Child Care Leave ‌ Upon completion of maternity, adoption and/or parental leave, including any extension to such leaves, a regular employee will be entitled, upon written application, to a leave of absence without pay to care for the child. Subject to Clause 11.3(a), the following conditions shall apply:

Qualified Personnel Contractor shall utilize only competent personnel under the supervision of, and in the employment of, Contractor (or Contractor’s authorized subcontractors) to perform the Services. Contractor will comply with City’s reasonable requests regarding assignment and/or removal of personnel, but all personnel, including those assigned at City’s request, must be supervised by Contractor. Contractor shall commit adequate resources to allow timely completion within the project schedule specified in this Agreement.

Non-Employment of COUNTY Personnel 2.1.1 A-E agrees that it will neither negotiate, offer, or give employment to any full-time, regular employee of COUNTY in professional classifications of the same skills required for the performance of this CONTRACT who is involved in this Project in a participatory status during the life of this CONTRACT regardless of the assignments said employee may be given or the days or hours employee may work.

Child Care Leave After one (1) year of continuous employment, an unpaid leave may be granted to an employee to care for a dependent child who resides with the employee for conditions other than those set forth in Section 16.4 (Family Leave) without loss of seniority or accrued benefits. An employee on child care leave shall be entitled to the first available position for which the employee is qualified. Such leave shall not exceed one (1) year.

Maternity and Parental Leave Employees are eligible for unpaid leave of absence from employment subject to the conditions in this article. Every employee who intends to take a leave of absence under this article will give at least four weeks" notice in writing to the Employer unless there is a valid reason why such notice cannot be given and will inform the Employer in writing of the length of leave intended to be taken. Each employee who wishes to change the effective date of approved leave will give four weeks" notice of such change unless there is a valid reason why such notice cannot be given.

Removal of Contractor Employee All employees of the Engineer assigned to this contract shall have such knowledge and experience as will enable them to perform the duties assigned to them. The State may instruct the Engineer to remove any employee from association with work authorized in this contract if, in the sole opinion of the State, the work of that employee does not comply with the terms of this contract or if the conduct of that employee becomes detrimental to the work.

Skiers and snowboarders can get to know the range of slopes at Furano Resort with the Ski Host service. Volunteer guides can take you on a run which best suits your level of experience. Please note that guides do not provide ski or snowboard lessons.

Goryokaku Fort / Hakodate Magistrate"s Office / Morning Market / Bay Area / Kanemori Red-brick warehouses / Motomachi / Japanese temples & shrines / Western churches / Hakodate City Museum of Northern Peoples / Old Public Hall of Hakodate Ward / Former British Consulate / Mt. Hakodate

A team of Goodwill Guides can show you around the UNESCO World Heritage Site of Hiraizumi. Tour guide reservations are required at least one week in advance. Contact details are available on the website.

Festivals: Chagu Chagu Umakko (every year, the second Saturday of June) / Sansa dance parade (every year, August.1st-4th) / Hachiman shrine festival (every year, Sep.14th-16th)

Tourists can enjoy festivals, sightseeing and shopping in the old town of Morioka with the help of a local resident. Reservations for a volunteer guide can be made via email. Contact details are available on the website.

Enjoy the sights and local cuisine in the Matsushima area with a local volunteer guide. Please send an email to request a reservation at least two weeks in advance of your visit. Contact details are available on the website.

Visitors can enjoy their time in Miyagi with the help of a local guide. Most guides typically operate in and around Sendai. Please use the website contact form to make a reservation.

Volunteer guides provide tours around local sights and attractions. Please note it"s not always possible to accept requests for a guide due to a lack of staff availability.

The Chinone Group supports foreign visitors exploring the Mita City and Tokai Mura areas of Ibaraki. Please contact the association at least two weeks in advance to make a reservation.

Chiyoda Circle volunteers are available to show you around your preferred places in Tsukuba City and the surrounding areas, including Mount Tsukuba and Lake Kasumigaura.

Visitors can enjoy the shrines and temples in and around Nikko City (a World Heritage Site) with the assistance of volunteer guides from the Nikko SGG Club.

The Utsunomiya SGG Club provide volunteer guide and interpreter services for foreign visitors around Utsunomiya and the Nikko area. The team also offer information services for tourists at JR Utsunomiya Station every weekend.

Friday Club volunteers are available to help foreign visitors with guided tours of the local area and interpretation services. Please contact the association via email to make requests.

Volunteers can guide you on a visit to Naritasan temple, located near Narita International Airport. Enjoy the traditional buildings, Buddhist statues and the Fire Ceremony of Shingon Esoteric Buddhism.

Guides are available to help international visitors explore alternative destinations in the suburbs of Tokyo. Please contact Tsunetaro Iwatate and include the subject "Kashiwa Experience Tour" or "Tokyo Narita Guide". Private tours are available.

Nagareyama: Akagi Shrine / ISSA Memorial Museum (haiku-poet) / Kaleidscope Gallery / Sake and Soy Sauce Brewery Tour / The Tone Canal (Designed by a Dutch engineer)

Experience a different side to Japan and visit Nagareyama (25 minutes by train from Tokyo). Please contact the association two weeks prior to your visit to reserve a volunteer guide.

Local volunteers can show you around Tokyo on foot. They can tailor a unique itinerary to help you experience the city your way, and introduce the city"s important cultural and historical spots.

Volunteer guides at the Shinagawa SGG Club are available to help overseas tourists enjoy sightseeing and shopping in Tokyo. The team will do their utmost to accommodate your personal requests.

Volunteers are available to guide people with physical disabilities around Tokyo and Kamakura. The team provides support in several languages, with all services offered in line with Red Cross principles.

Join a Tokyo Free Walking Tour and experience the city on foot. Tours are conducted regularly on Saturdays and Sundays, with occasional weekday tours offered. Visit the website for more information and to make a reservation.

Tourists can explore the tourist spots of the Tokyo area with the help of a local student guide. Please contact Tokyo International Student Guide at least two weeks in advance of your visit.

Visitors should arrive at the designated SGG Club counter desk before the tour start time. Please note that tours are offered on a first come first served basis and can be canceled without prior notice.

Volunteer guides are available to take visitors into the heart of everyday life in Koto City, Tokyo. Enjoy Japanese gardens, museums, shopping, and a sumo wrestler practice session! Please visit the website for more details.

Alumni from Doshisha University and Doshisha Women"s College of Liberal Arts in Kyoto offer support and guided tours to international travelers visiting either Tokyo or the Kansai region. Contact details are available on the website.

Hiking and hot spring experiences / Visiting museums and historical spots / Round trip of Hakone by a mountain train, a cable car, rope-ways and a sightseeing cruise / Odawara Castle / Ichiya-jyo Castle

Volunteers provide foreign language sightseeing guide services. They can guide international visitors and non-Japanese speaking residents around Odawara and Hakone in Kanagawa. Please visit the website for more information.

The Yamanashi Systematized Goodwill Guides (YSGG) association operates from 9:00 until 16:00 or from 10:00 until 17:00. Contact YSGG through its website or via email. The team will reply within one week.

Bonsho No Kai volunteers bring Japanese culture to life by guiding you around sightseeing spots in and around Nagano. Please send an email (contact details available on the website) to request a volunteer guide.

Please contact DSI Volunteer Guides at least two weeks in advance of your intended visit. As staff volunteer, it may not be possible to arrange guided services on your requested date.

Tour Concierge Toyama offers tours between 9:00 and 17:00, seven days a week. Make a reservation via email two weeks in advance. For more information, please refer to the website.

Visitors can explore the beach town resort of Atami with the help of a volunteer guide. Please make requests for a guide via the website contact form at least ten days in advance of your visit.

Foreign visitors can tour the Ito area with a local volunteer guide. To reserve a place, please contact the organization through the website at least two weeks in advance of your trip.

The Izu Systematized Goodwill Guide Club provides memorable guided tours around the South Izu area. Please contact them by email to arrange a guide and tour route.

Nagoya Castle / Osu Shopping Arcade / Atsuta Jingu Shrine / Tokugawa Museum / Arimatsu / Shirotori Garden / Toyota Commemorative Museum of Industry and Technology / etc.

Volunteers from Aichi Goodwill Guides Network are available to guide you around the city of Nagoya. Please make a request for a guide via email at least two weeks in advance of your visit.

The Chita Peninsular SGG Club aims to make Japanese history and culture accessible to everyone through volunteer guide and interpretation services available to those visiting the Chita Peninsula.

International visitors can enjoy old Japan in Inuyama, Aichi prefecture. Volunteers guides area available to introduce tourists from foreign countries to Inuyama Castle, Jo-an Tea Ceremony House and other sightseeing spots.

The Gifu Goodwill Guides Network is a non-profit organization which offers volunteer guided sightseeing tours around Gifu prefecture. It hopes to promote cross-cultural understanding through its services.

Enjoy Hikone and Hikone Castle with local volunteer guides. Please note, 1000 yen is charged for the guide"s transportation and this fee still applies in the event of no-shows or cancellations on the day.

The Good Samaritan Club is made up of a team of volunteer students from various Kyoto universities. They provide bespoke guided tours around the famous city of Kyoto, helping visitors enjoy the sights.

The Kyoto (East) S.G.G Club provides tour guides for overseas tourists. To reserve a guide, please visit the website and complete the guide service application form, stating where you wish to go in Kyoto City.

Kyoto SGG and Associates can guide you around Kyoto, the former capital of Japan. Visit Kyoto"s numerous UNESCO World Heritage Sites and enjoy beautiful scenery with the support of a local guide.

Tours of up to six people can be accommodated. Please request a tour guide via the website application form. To request a guide for additional days, please submit a separate form for each extra day required.

World Cultural Heritage by UNESCO, traditional handicrafts artisan"s houses and traditional culture workshop (Japanese tea ceremony, Ikebana e.g.) including traditional entertainment such as Japanese dance-Kabuki, Noh play.

Osaka SGG Club offer guided tours and language assistance to help visitors enjoy their time in Osaka. Please visit the homepage to request a guide and to view the association"s terms and conditions.

Nara SGG Club offers free guided tours and interpretation services to international visitors, helping you to have a safe, enjoyable and comfortable stay in Japan.

Nara YMCA Goodwill Guides are semi-professional guides with extensive knowledge of Nara and Japanese history and culture. Visit their website to view contact details and request a personalized tour in and around Nara.

Yamatokoriyama City (Koriyama Castle, Goldfish Scooping Competition, Hinadoll Festival) / Nara City (Deer, Yakushiji Temple, Toshodaiji Temple) / Ikaruga Town (Horyuji Temple, Fujinoki-kofun Tumulus) / Ando Town (Ceramic Works)

Enjoy the highlights of Wakayama, including Koyasan - one of the most famous monastic centers in Japan. Please contact Wakayama Interpreter Volunteer Club at least two weeks in advance to request a guide.

Explore Himeji with an English-speaking guide from the Himeji Goodwill Guide Kashinoki-kai association. Volunteers (based at Navi port in front of Himeji station) also guide people around Himeji Castle, Kokoen and Mount Shosha, by appointment only.

Kobe Nunobiki Ropeway and Herb Gardens / Mt.Rokko / Arima Hot Springs / Harborland / Meriken Park / Nada Sake Breweries / Kitano Foreigners" Residences / China Town / Pearl Bridge / Disaster Reduction and Human Renovation Institute / Ikuta Shrine /

Kobe SGG club offers guided tours and interpretation services to international visitors. The association will arrange a tour based on your requests, helping to make your visit more enjoyable and comfortable.

Volunteer guides wait near the ticket office on most days. Look out for the "Free English-speaking guided tour available" sign. Please note that advance reservations are not usually accepted.

Goodwill Guides welcome foreign visitors to Matsue. Please note the Matsue Castle free guided tour is available from 10:00 until 16:00 every Saturday and Sunday from March to November.

Visitors can explore the old town of Kurashiki with the support of an English- speaking guide. Please contact the association directly to make your arrangements.

Hiroshima SGG Club volunteer guides can meet you at JR Hiroshima Station (the Shinkansen ticket gate or the South exit) or, alternatively, at your hotel on the scheduled day of your tour.

Foreign visitors can experience Kagawa with a local goodwill guide on a personalized tour. Please complete the website application form, or send an email, to make a request for a guide.

Volunteers are available to help visitors enjoy the sights of Ehime. Free guided tours and interpretation services are available on request. To contact the association, please send an email.

Please contact Tokushima GG Club via email to make an inquiry about tourism in Tokushima. To reserve a guide, please contact the association at least two weeks in advance.

Kochi SGG Club aims to promote international friendship through free guided tours of local sightseeing spots. Visitors can contact the association via email or use the website application form to request a guide.

Volunteers are available to guide visitors on personalized tours in and around Fukuoka. Association members can also provide advice to those traveling further afield in Kyushu. Please use the website application form to request a guide.

Volunteer tour guides are not trained professionals and tour content may differ from those offered by travel agencies. Also, please note it is not always possible to guarantee that a guide will be available on your requested date.

Volunteer guides can show you around Kumamoto City and the surrounding area. Please note the city was damaged by two large earthquakes in 2016 which caused damage to buildings, including Kumamoto Castle, which is now being restored.

Make the most of your stay in Kagoshima City with a volunteer guide from Kagoshima GAiGO Gakuin Club. Requests for a guide can be made through the website application form.

Kagoshima iBS International Speaking Society members are available for personalized guided tours in and around Kagoshima City. Please contact the association directly to make a request.

Segodon course, Kirishima Shrine, Kagoshima Shrine, Wake Shrine and Inukai Water Fall. Hayato Mound and Hamanoichi, Ruin of Osumi Kokubunji, Kokubu Shiroyama park

Nantong Fasten Metals Products Co., LTD is located in the coastal open city—Nantong which is in the lower area of the Yangtze River. We are a professional corporation which produces a variety of standards and types of galvanized steel wire rope, ungalvanized steel wire rope, steel-wire, stranded wire and spring steel wire. Our products mainly exported to Southeast Asia, the United States, Europe, the Middle East, Africa and other countries.

This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks. The action you just performed triggered the security solution. There are several actions that could trigger this block including submitting a certain word or phrase, a SQL command or malformed data.

WINSTON, STRAWN, SMITH & PATTERSON, and BERCHEM, SCHWANTES & THUMA, both of Chicago, (GEORGE B. CHRISTENSEN, CHARLES J. CALDERINI, DONALD N. BERCHEM, and EDWARD J. WENDROW, of counsel,) for appellee AMERICAN MUTUAL LIABILITY INS. Co.

The 18 plaintiffs in this case brought suit in the superior court of Cook County to recover for personal injuries and wrongful deaths suffered on March 19, 1957, when a temporary construction hoist, being operated in conjunction with the erection of a multi-story courthouse in the city of Jacksonville, Florida, plunged a distance of six floors with 19 workmen aboard. Seven were killed and the remainder were severely injured. Two of the plaintiffs, (we use the term to include plaintiffs" decedents,) were employees of George D. Auchter Company, the general contractor which owned and operated the hoist, while the balance were employees of Auchter"s subcontractors on the project. The actions, later consolidated, were brought against Union Wire Rope Company, manufacturer of a cable that broke, Archer Iron Works, designer and manufacturer of the hoist and a safety device thereon which failed to halt the fall, and American Mutual Liability Insurance Company, the workmen"s compensation and public liability carrier for Auchter, which was charged with the *72 negligent performance of gratuitous safety inspections and safety engineering service.

Following an extended trial, judgments were entered on jury verdicts finding the defendants Union Wire and Archer Iron not guilty, and finding defendant American Mutual guilty and liable for damages assessed in a total amount of $1,569,400. On appeal, both by plaintiffs and American Mutual, the Appellate Court for the First District affirmed the judgments in favor of Union Wire and Archer Iron, but reversed outright the judgments against American Mutual. (Nelson v. Union Wire Rope Corp., 39 Ill. App.2d 73.) We have allowed the plaintiffs" petition for leave to appeal to further review the matter. In addition, we have granted leave to several insurance groups to file a brief as amici curiae.

As a matter of initial concern it is unnecessary in our opinion to completely detail the respective pleadings, proof, arguments and authorities advanced in relation to the issues on review between plaintiffs and defendants Archer Iron and Union Wire. Although we do not necessarily adopt all that is said by the Appellate Court, particularly with respect to its concepts of various rules of evidence, and we do not approve of some aspects of Archer"s presentation in this court, we are in basic accord with the court"s judgments as to these two defendants and see no beneficial purpose in repetition or further analysis of those phases of the litigation. Gould v. Gould, Kamienski v. Bluebird Air Service, Inc.

The substance of plaintiffs" complaint against American Mutual, (hereafter referred to as defendant) and the theory they have consistently adhered to, is that the insurance company had gratuitously undertaken to make safety inspections of the practices and equipment of Auchter, its insured, and had carelessly and negligently performed the said inspections, as the proximate result of which plaintiffs were injured and killed. Other specifications charged that *73 defendant had carelessly and negligently failed to detect and report: that the hoist"s safety mechanism was inadequate and defective; that the tower was improperly designed and manufactured in that it did not have sufficient strength to permit the safety device to function; that the cable was in a worn condition; that the hoist was being used for the transportation of personnel in violation of a city ordinance, and that a sheave on the hoist was of improper size in violation of a city ordinance. A concluding specification charged that defendant had negligently failed to warn Auchter against the unsafe practice of permitting personnel to ride on the hoist. In answer, defendant denied that it had undertaken, gratuitously or otherwise, to make such safety inspections, or that such safety inspections of practices, machinery or hoists had in fact occurred, and denied that it had been guilty of negligence of any kind, or in the respects specifically charged. Further, defendant denied that it had made periodic or regular surveys or inspections of the premises or equipment, and while admitting that an employee had made intermittent and infrequent surveys and inspections of the premises, it denied that they had pertained to or included the hoist, and alleged that they were for the sole purpose of keeping itself advised of the risk it had insured. As a first affirmative defense defendant alleged that, because it was the general contractor"s compensation carrier, it was not subject to suit as a third party tort feasor under the Florida Workmen"s Compensation Act; as a second affirmative defense it was alleged that if it had in fact performed safety inspections as plaintiffs charged, it became a subcontractor and was thus immune from tort liability to plaintiffs by virtue of the Florida act.

Under these pleadings, and the proof and arguments advanced to sustain them, we are confronted with three principal issues, to be determined under the law of Florida as the situs of the occurrence and the State whose laws *74 regulate the relationships of the parties. (Mithen v. Jeffery, 259 Ill. 372.) Those issues may be stated as follows: first, was a valid common-law action proved against defendant in this case; second, were plaintiffs" causes of action against defendant taken from them by the Florida Workmen"s Compensation Act; and, third, did defendant, by making safety inspections, become a subcontractor on the courthouse project so as to gain immunity from tort liability under the act?

Before considering the particular facts of this case, we think it well to examine the legal foundation upon which plaintiffs" actions are based. Originating with the decision of Coggs v. Bernard, 2 Lord Raymond 909, it has come to be a recognized principle that liability can arise from the negligent performance of a voluntary undertaking. In our times a clear and oft-cited statement of the principle is the language of Justice Cardozo in Glanzer v. Shepard, 233 N.Y. 236, 135 N.E. 275, 276, when he said: "It is ancient learning that one who assumes to act, even though gratuitously, may thereby become subject to the duty of acting carefully, if he acts at all." (See also: 38 Am. Jur., Neg. sec. 17; 5 Harvard Law Review 222.) Florida, like Illinois, has recognized the doctrine. (Banfield v. Addington, 104 Fla. 661, 140 So. 893, 896; United States v. Lawter, (5th cir.) 219 F.2d 559; United States v. DeVane, (5th cir.) 306 F.2d 182; Triolo v. Frisella, 3 Ill. App.2d 200.) In addition, Florida has frequently stated that it will adhere to the views of the Restatement of Torts, (Propper v. Kesner, (Fla. 1958,) 104 So.2d 1; Tampa Drug Co. v. Wait, (Fla. 1958,) 103 So.2d 603; Matthews v. Lawnlite Co. (Fla. 1958,) 88 So.2d 299,) where the doctrine is stated in this manner: "(1) One who gratuitously renders services to another, * * * is subject to liability for bodily harm caused to the other by his failure, while so doing, to exercise such competence and skill as he possesses." § 323 (1).

*75 Our Appellate Court, in considering the doctrine as stated in the Restatement, concluded that it was "properly applicable only in situations involving active negligence, or misfeasance," (39 Ill. App.2d at 129,) an earlier portion of its opinion indicating that it equated the terms "active negligence" and "misfeasance" as meaning the "creation of a risk, or danger," and its belief that defendant here could not be liable for a gratuitous undertaking unless it was guilty of negligence which "caused the hoist to fall." (39 Ill. App.2d at 122.) In this we believe the court was plainly wrong. The language that a volunteer is liable for failure to use such competence and skill as he possesses does not admit to a conclusion that the only duty of the volunteer is to refrain from positive acts of negligence. Moreover, in those cases, subsequently discussed, where insurers have incurred liability as the result of gratuitous inspections of machines and equipment, liability rested upon a breach of the duty to make the inspections with due care, not upon acts which "created" dangers or defects, or which caused the occurrence by which injury was received. (See: Van Winkle v. American Steam-Boiler Ins. Co. 52 N.J.L. 240, 19 Alt. 472; Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Insurance Co. (7th cir.), 201 Fed. 617.) As is shown by defendant"s own citation of authority, viz., Viducich v. Greater New York Mutual Insurance Co. 192 A.2d 596, plaintiffs, to support their actions, had only to show (1) that defendant undertook to make safety inspections and to render safety engineering services under circumstances which created a duty on defendant, owed to plaintiffs, to perform its undertakings with due care, and (2) that the gratuitous undertakings were negligently performed, such negligence resulting proximately in plaintiffs" deaths and injuries. See also: McClure v. Hoopeston Gas and Electric Co. 303 Ill. 89, 96; Devaney v. Otis Elevator Co. 251 Ill. 28, 33.

There is respectable authority, old and new, that gratuitous *76 inspections by insurers may be made under such circumstances as to create an enforceable duty to persons known and unknown. The latest of these is Smith v. American Employers" Insurance Co. 163 A.2d 564, a decision which our Appellate Court erroneously dismissed as being based solely on a contract agreement. In that case the complaint of the plaintiff alleged that the employer"s workmen"s compensation carrier, for some time prior to the accident, had gratuitously conducted monthly inspections at the insured"s plant, which extended to an air compressor that exploded and injured plaintiff, an employee of the insured. The New Hampshire court, in sustaining the validity of plaintiff"s tort action against the carrier, held such gratuitous conduct created a duty to use due care which clearly extended to the injured employee. In Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Insurance Co. v. Pabst Brewing Co. (7th cir.) 201 Fed. 617, where boilers gratuitously inspected by the insurer exploded, the policy had been in force for 15 months and it was held that the insurer"s continuous conduct of inspection and report (the last being in the month prior to the explosion,) coupled with the representations of its advertising as to the broad scope and value of its inspections, (see: 201 F. at 629), were of "probative force to show both the undertaking of duty and the relation of the parties upon which the action for negligence in the performance thereof may be predicated." Following this the court said: "Inspection of the boilers necessarily requires care and skill in its performance for safety in their use, and, when thus undertaken by the Insurance Company to serve as a benefit to the assured, the duty arises, with or without contract obligation to inspect, to exercise reasonable care and skill in each inspection so made, * * *." (201 Fed. at 629.)

Van Winkle v. American Steam-Boiler Ins. Co. 52 N.J.L. 240, 19 Atl. 472, presented a situation where the insurance company issued a policy covering a boiler owned by *77 Ivanhoe Paper Co. and reserved to itself the right to inspect and examine such boiler. It subsequently blew up and damaged the building of Van Winkle, adjacent to that of Ivanhoe, who brought suit against the insurer. The New Jersey court, after first stating it was obvious plaintiff could not predicate his suit on the contract between Ivanhoe and the insurance company, concluded that the issue before it was the legal effect of the acts done by the insurer under the contract, insofar as they affected the rights of plaintiff, a stranger to the contract. The court commented that the insurer was not bound to inspect the boiler, and that if it had not done so no liability to plaintiff could arise. However, the facts of the case disclosed that the insurer had gratuitously made repeated inspections and had also undertaken to furnish its insured with a certificate stating the load that could be put on the safety valve, which conduct caused the court to conclude the insurer had become obligated to make a careful inspection. It was stated (at page 475 of 19 Atl.): "And it would seem that there is a broader ground than the one above defined, on which the present case can be based. It is this: that in all cases in which any person undertakes the performance of an act, which if not done with care and skill, will be highly dangerous to the persons or lives of one or more persons, known or unknown, the law, ipso facto, imposes, as a public duty, the obligation to exercise such care and skill." (Emphasis ours.) While recently analyzing the Van Winkle case in Viducich v. Greater New York Mutual Insurance Co. 192 A.2d 596, a New Jersey appeals court again manifested the view that the repeated inspections and the furnishing of certificates for the guidance of Ivanhoe"s engineer were circumstances which created a duty upon the insurer to inspect with due care.

In Sheridan v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 100 P.2d 1024, the insurer issued an insurance policy on an elevator, the policy reserving the right to inspection. *78 Thereafter, the insurer made periodic inspections, making reports to the owner and also to the city as an ordinance required. An employee of a tenant in the building was injured by a defective elevator door and brought suit against the insurer, who defended that plaintiff had no rights under the policy and that it was not liable by reason of the inspections made. After reviewing numerous cases holding that the voluntary assumption of a duty renders one liable for its negligent performance, the court concluded (Bollin v. Elevator Construction & Repair Co. 63 A.2d 19.

On the other hand, relied upon by defendant, are Viducich v. Greater New York Mutual Insurance Co. 192 A.2d 596; Zamecki v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. 95 A.2d 302; and Ulwelling v. Crown Coach Corp. 206 Cal. App.2d 96, 23 Cal. Reptr. 631, where the circumstances of the gratuitous inspections by insurers were held to create no enforceable duty to the plaintiffs involved. However, in the Viducich case, but one inspection was made of a new business venture, and it appeared that the only purpose of the inspection was to determine the "insurer"s remuneration." Under such circumstances the New Jersey court held no duty to inspect with due care had arisen as to the plaintiff, an employee of the insured who was later injured due to the absence of a guard on a machine. Comparably, in Ulwelling, an inspection of an insured"s buses in October, 1956, was for the purpose of rating a new account, while a subsequent inspection in January, 1957, made after the policy had issued and 9 months before the occurrence which prompted the suit, was done on a sampling basis, did not include the bus involved in the *79 mishap, and was not performed by a trained or expert inspector. These circumstances, as well as proof showing that 75% of 80% of the insurer"s gratuitous safety engineering services were directed to road patrol service, led the California court to conclude the inspections were not of such nature as would impose upon the insurer any duty owing plaintiffs, the latter being either passengers or representatives of passengers in a bus that crashed when a drive shaft separated and damaged the air brake system. In the Zamecki case, which was decided on the pleadings, it was alleged by a patron injured in the collapse of a temporary grandstand that the promoter"s insurer had gratuitously and negligently inspected the stands, and had failed to advise plaintiff of their faulty construction. The Maryland court, in what would appear to be a distinct minority view, was of the opinion that no duty could arise from voluntary inspection, as distinguished from voluntary maintenance.

The proof in the present case fully negates any concept that defendant"s gratuitous inspections were solely for its own internal purposes, and likewise refutes the allegations in its answer denying that safety inspections had been made, or that it had made regular and periodic inspections. At the time and immediately prior to the date Auchter took out its compensation and public liability policies on the courthouse project, defendant constantly represented that those who insured with it would receive countless extra safety and monetary benefits through the services of defendant"s "safety experts" or "safety engineers." An advertising symbol referred to as "Mr. Friendly" was adopted, and by a series of advertisements placed in both national and trade publications, such representations as the following were made: (1) "In case after case, month after month, American Mutual"s safety engineering service has helped contractors all over the country reduce accidents and costs;" (2) that insureds "have *80 worked hand in hand with American Mutual Safety Engineers to build safety into every job;" (3) after explaining that one insured had saved money, the method was stated to be: "Close cooperation between Hittig Management and American Mutual Safety Engineers in designing and operating an effective safety program;" (4) "Thanks to thorough investigation and hazard analysis * * * and immediate investigations when accidents have occurred, this nationally known firm has been able to maintain a good accident record and to lower operating costs." These are but samplings of many representations that could be stated, but, in general, the tenor of each of the 29 advertisements admitted in evidence was that the safety engineers took an active part in the safety programs of the insureds and saved lives, limbs and money. A former executive of defendant, testifying directly to the function of the safety engineers, stated that it was to help the insureds to reduce accidents and to determine what were or were not unsafe practices. From all of the evidence it appears that defendant"s safety engineers, and the various financial and safety benefits claimed to inure to insureds as a result of their safety engineering services, were its chief stock in trade. Just as certainly, it appears beyond a shadow of a doubt that the services gratuitously given by the engineers were not solely for defendant"s own purposes.

*81 McClain first went to the job site in the summer of 1955 while the demolition of previous buildings was going on, and there appears to be no question but that the purpose of this visit was to determine and report conditions so as to allow defendant"s underwriting department to determine forms and rates of insurance. Construction started on the building sometime prior to October 10, 1955, and while it was McClain"s testimony that he made but seven visits to the site up to March 19, 1957, when the hoist fell, (the last such visit being February 12, 1957,) witnesses for plaintiff testified he was on the site more frequently. McClain said his visits averaged about four hours, during which he would go over the entire project, concerning himself with housekeeping conditions, machine hazards, and the hazards of falls and falling objects. Further, he stated that during every visit he would see either Arthur Avent, Auchter"s administrative engineer on the job, or Sidney Hodge, the project superintendent, with whom he discussed conditions and whom he found co-operative.

After each visit or inspection, McClain made various reports to his own company and wrote a letter to Auchter, the insured. His first visit after construction started took place over October 10 and 11, 1955, and his engineering report on this occasion stated: "A visit has been scheduled in November 1955. * * * At that time the engineer prepares to continue his accident prevention work and to assist the assured in making the job safe." The next formal report followed a visit by McClain on January 10, 1956, wherein he wrote: "Service plans have been set forth in previous reports and bi-monthly service upon a regular basis has been scheduled to this job until completion." Thereafter, formal reports were submitted showing visits in March, June, September and October of 1956, and in February of 1957. In the September 1956 report it was said: "The purpose of this visit was a periodic maintenance visit to observe continued operations on this project and to maintain *82 policy holder service." On each occasion his engineering reports represented that he had inspected and analyzed "catastrophe" and "serious" hazards, including "Machine hazards." On a separate report form, McClain listed the machinery and equipment being used on the job and described their use and operation. After June, 1956, this form noted that there were "elevators" on the project, which were "typed" as builder"s hoists, owned by the insured.

Following each visit formally reported to his employer, McClain, as we have said, also wrote letters to Auchter describing the visits and making representations of which the following are typical: (1) "I plan to again be in Jacksonville within a few weeks and will visit both of the above jobs again as a continuation of our service to you in the control of accident possibility;" (2) "I plan early visits in November to assist your superintendents;" (3) "Continuing our engineering service to you in making your operations safe * * * I made a survey of your operations and from an over-all standpoint found job practices satisfactory from a safety standpoint;" (4) "Continuing our engineering service to you and a maintenance of your loss control program, I called at the jobs in caption;" (5) "To assist you further in your accident control at the job, I suggested to Mr. Hodge that he ground the frame of the builder"s hoist."

Copies of the safety engineer"s inspection reports and surveys, as well as any recommendations made to the insured, were transmitted to various of defendant"s departments, including sales and engineering. A former employee in the sales department testified that if at any time the recommendations were not complied with, the sales department would be requested to contact the risk to see that there was compliance. "Normal recommendations," he said, would not require any action on the part of the sales department, but those of an "urgent" nature would be followed *83 up by the sales manager whose duty it was to see that there was immediate compliance on the part of the insured. Instructions from the home office were that if urgent recommendations were not complied with, cancellation notices would be issued and the risk normally cancelled. The exact action taken by the engineering department with regard to recommendations does not fully appear, but it does appear that, on one occasion at least, McClain went to Auchter"s president when he met with some recalcitrance on the part of Hodge, the project superintendent, and one of the men with whom McClain directly discussed his inspections and findings. On each succeeding visit, McClain would check to see if his recommendations were carried out.

Taken in its entirety, all of this evidence leads solely to the conclusion that defendant did gratuitously undertake to make safety inspections and to render safety engineering services on the courthouse project, and that such inspections were planned, periodic and directed to the safety of the employees on the project. Under these circumstances, which parallel in some instances and exceed in others the circumstances in the Smith, Pabst and Van Winkle cases, it is our opinion that duty devolved upon defendant, owed to the plaintiffs, to make its inspections with due care. Of a certainty, defendant"s present efforts to characterize McClain"s activities as nothing but "casual observation" for its "own purposes," cannot be squared with the scope of the activities which were represented in the advertising, reports and letters before any question of liability arose. We hold that an enforceable duty to plaintiffs did arise as the result of defendant"s gratuitous undertaking in this case.

Before looking to the evidence relating to the issue of whether defendant failed to use due care, or the skill and competence that it possessed, in the performance of its gratuitous undertaking, we think it well to first consider defendant"s contentions: (1) that the absence of any reliance by either Auchter or plaintiffs upon McClain to inspect the *84 hoist is a bar to the plaintiffs" actions; (2) that defendant"s absence of control over Auchter or the hoist is a bar to the plaintiffs" actions; and (3) that the absence of privity between plaintiffs and defendant is a bar to plaintiffs" actions.

Treating upon these contentions in reverse order, the claim of the need for privity may be disposed of quickly. Florida, like Illinois and the vast majority of jurisdictions, has long since refused to permit the ancient shield of privity to insulate a tort feasor from the consequences of his negligent conduct. (See: Hoskins v. Jackson Grain Co. (Fla.) 63 So.2d 514; Wintersteen v. National Cooperage and Woodenware Co. 361 Ill. 95; Durham v. Warner Elevator Mfg. Co. 166 Ohio St. 31, 139 N.E.2d 10.) Speaking directly as to the liability of a gratuitous actor, a Florida court stated in Banfield v. Addington, 104 Fla. 661, 140 So. 893: "And even `where a man interferes gratuitously, he is bound to act in a reasonable and prudent manner according to the circumstances and opportunities of the case. And this duty is not affected by the fact, if so it be, that he is acting for reward, in other words under a contract, and may be liable on the contract. The two duties are distinct, * * *.""

Similarly, the circumstance that defendant did not control Auchter or its equipment and employees cannot relieve it from liability for the consequences of its negligence. (Cf.Kahn v. James Burton Co. Smith, Pabst and Van Winkle cases, as well as Triolo v. Frisella, 3 Ill. App.2d 200, are a *85 complete rejection of any concept that control of the premises where negligence occurs is essential to the liability of a gratuitous actor.

Defendant"s contention that the element of reliance is essential to its liability to plaintiffs is founded upon the premise that defendant was charged "only with nonfeasance, a failure to report a risk, or dangerous situation, already existing," (39 Ill. App.2d at 122,) and upon the argument that whenever a duty arises from an undertaking, gratuitous or otherwise, the sine qua non for liability for nonfeasance, i.e. the omission to perform the undertaking, is reliance by the person to whom the undertaking was directed or by the person injured. This theory, however, either overlooks or misapprehends that defendant was charged with misfeasance, to-wit, that it gratuitously undertook to make safety inspections of the equipment and practices of its insured, and that it had "carelessly and negligently performed the said inspections on a certain elevator or hoist so that as a direct and proximate result thereof certain plaintiffs were injured and decedents of certain plaintiffs killed." (Emphasis ours.) Defendant was not charged with liability for omitting to perform an undertaking which plaintiffs or Auchter expected or relied upon it to undertake, (see: United States v. DeVane, (5th cir.) 306 F.2d 183; Restatement of Torts, § 325,) but was charged with having undertaken to perform safety inspections, a lawful act, and with having done so carelessly and negligently. (See: Smith v. American Employers" Ins. Co. 163 A.2d 564; Restatement of Torts, § 323 (1).) By undertaking to act defendant became subject to a duty with respect to the manner of performance. (Banfield v. Addington, 104 Fla. 661, 140 So. 893, 896; Roesler v. Liberty National Bank of Chicago, 2 Ill. App.2d 54, 58-59; Marks v. Nambil Realty Co. 245 N.Y. 256, 157 N.E. 129, 130.) That duty, as we have pointed out, extended to plaintiffs *86 and was a duty to use due care, or as the Restatement of Torts puts it, defendant"s duty was "to exercise such competence and skill as (it) possesses." § 323(1).

We think it clear under the law that defendant"s liability for the negligent performance of its undertaking, as distinguished from a failure to perform, is not limited to such persons as might have relied upon it to act but extends instead to such persons as defendant could reasonably have foreseen would be endangered as the result of negligent performance. It is axiomatic that every person owes to all others a duty to exercise ordinary care to guard against injury which naturally flows as a reasonably probable and foreseeable consequence of his act, and that such duty does not depend upon contract, privity of interest or the proximity of relationship, but extends to remote and unknown persons. (Kahn v. James Burton Co. Wintersteen v. National Cooperage Co. 361 Ill. 95, 103; Smith v. American Employers" Insurance Co. 163 A.2d 564; Van Winkle v. American Steam-Boiler Ins. Co. 52 N.J.L. 240, 19 Atl. 472, 475; Cf.Ziraldo v. Lynch Co.

To sustain its claim that reliance is essential to its liability defendant relies heavily upon Viducich v. Greater New York Mutual Insurance Co. 192 A.2d 596, and upon analogies drawn from the Restatements of Agency, Torts and Contracts. The language of the Viducuch opinion relied upon, however, has little persuasion. Not only does it appear to be dictum, but the New Jersey court itself left unanswered the question whether proof of reliance is an absolute essential "in every case in which it is sought to hold a gratuitous undertaker." (192 *87 A.2d at 601.) Nor do the sections of the Restatements advanced by defendant have any persuasive or controlling analogy to this case. Section 378 of the Restatement of Agency, section 325 of the Restatement of Torts and section 90 of the Restatement of Contracts all have reference to the situation where a person is injured because he was either induced to act or to forbear from acting because of reliance upon conduct or promises of another. None apply to the facts here, and, moreover, plaintiffs" actions are predicated upon section 323 (1) of the Restatement of Torts, viz., the negligent performance of a gratuitous undertaking, which does not require reliance as a basis for liability. In like manner, section 354 of the Restatement of Agency has no value here; it has reference to liability arising from an agent"s "subsequent unexcused failure to act," after having previously acted in such a manner as to cause his principal or others to rely upon him.

Plaintiffs have argued that if reliance by Auchter is essential to defendant"s liability to them, the proof is such that the jury could find with reason that Auchter had in fact relied upon defendant"s safety inspections. Without making an extended analysis of the pertinent evidence, we believe that there is merit in this contention. However, for the reasons already stated, it is enough to say that reliance, either by plaintiffs or Auchter, was not an absolute essential to the liability of the defendant in this case.

Relying largely upon inspection and maintenance cases where the scope of undertaking, duty and liability were determined by contract, (e.g.Wolfmeyer v. Otis Elevator Co. (Mo.) 262 S.W.2d 18; Otis Elevator Co. v. Embert, 84 A.2d 876; and Blackhawk Hotels Co. v. Bonfoey, (8th cir.) 227 F.2d 232,) defendant also injects a contention that it could be liable to plaintiffs only if it had assumed entirely Auchter"s duty of inspecting the hoist and cable. We do not find, however, that such a condition attaches to the liability of one gratuitously making safety inspections. *88 In the Smith, Van Winkle and Pabst cases duty and liability were found to arise even though the voluntary inspections had been periodic, and we are persuaded by the holding in Van Winkle that the gratuitous inspector became subject to an enforceable duty to use due care "as soon as it took part, practically, in the management of this machine." (19 A.2d at 475.) Moreover, it is fundamental in the law of negligence that there may be more than one proximate cause of injury, (De La Concha v. Pinero, (Fla.) 104 So.2d 25; St. Louis Bridge Co. v. Miller, 138 Ill. 465,) and that one is liable for its negligent conduct whether it contributed in whole or in part to the plaintiff"s injury, so long as it was one of the proximate causes of injury.

Turning to the material facts, Auchter purchased the construction hoist from Archer Iron in late 1955, and erected it at the courthouse project in May, 1956, ten months before the occurrence which led to plaintiffs" actions. The hoist bail, with the platform attached, was raised and lowered by a steel cable and moved along vertical guide rails on each side, the guide rails being attached to the tubular metal pipes which made up the hoist tower. Built into the bail was a device known as a "broken rope safety," consisting of two serrated jaws, or "dogs," opposite the two guide rails. The dogs remained retracted so long as the weight of the car hanging from the cable exerted pressure on the top of the bail, but, through the action of cams and springs, would extend out and engage the guide rails as soon as pressure was released on the cable. The pressure and traction exerted by the dogs on the guide rails was thus supposed to arrest the gravitational fall of the platform. As is explained in greater detail in the opinion of the Appellate Court, a new 3/4-inch cable manufactured by Union Wire was installed, and a one-part line was rigged between the hoist and a drum, activated by a motor, upon which the cable was wound. To accomplish this rigging, two new sheaves furnished by Archer Iron were employed. These *89 sheaves had an outer diameter of 19 inches, and an inner diameter of 16 incres at the bed of the groove. Within a short time after the hoist had gone into operation, Auchter, to slow down the speed of the platform, re-rigged the cable and made a two-part line by affixing a third sheave to the top of the bail. This sheave, which was used and had been obtained from Auchter"s construction yard, had an inner diameter of slightly less than 10 inches. It was in plain view, and easily accessible for inspection.

Once in operation the hoist was used to transport building materials and, except for the period during which it was being re-rigged, the uncontroverted proof in the record is that personnel of all categories on the project, laborers, supervisors and company executives, constantly rode on the hoist up to the time it fell. There was evidence that stairways in the building under construction were ill-lit, cluttered with scaffolds, waste and materials, and sometimes closed; and it further appears that the greatest use of the hoist by personnel was at starting and quitting times. On the day of the occurrence, at quitting time, the 18 plaintiffs and another workman got on the platform at fifth floor level. After they had done so, the cable broke and the platform plunged to the ground.

Following the accident the cable, the sheave added by Auchter, and portions of the hoist tower were sent to the Pittsburgh Testing Laboratories, an impartial testing agency agreed upon by all parties. From tests and inspections made it was the virtually uncontradicted testimony of the experts participating that excessive cable wear due to a faulty sheave and the inadequacy of the broken rope safety device were contributing causes of the tragedy. Examination of the cable revealed that it was practically disintegrated for a distance of 21 feet, and it was ascertained that the break had occurred at a point where the cable passed over all three sheaves. The bed of the groove in the sheave added by Auchter was found to be worn and corrugated in *90 a herringbone pattern, and when measured with a gauge the groove was found to be out of contour due to uneven wear patterns on the groove walls. This condition, according to an expert witness, would subject the cable to abnormal forces and skidding actions which would hasten its wear. Since wire cable bends around sheaves at an angle of 90 degrees, all witnesses agreed that there was a direct relation between cable wear and the size and condition of the sheave, and, in such regard, there was expert testimony that a cable passing over a 10-inch sheave, would wear out 2 1/2 to 5 times faster than one passing over a 16-inch sheave.

Scientific tests of the tower and its broken rope safety device, which we deem it unnecessary to detail, revealed that the forces exerted on the guide rails by the serrated jaws, or dogs, caused the rails to deflect outwards to such a degree that the safety device, with the platform falling from fifth floor level, could halt only a fall of 1300 pounds, which was but 300 pounds in excess of the weight of the hoist platform.

It is plaintiffs" contention that safety inspections made with due care, or which such care and skill as the safety engineer possessed, would have disclosed the dangerous conditions which ultimately caused the hoist to fall. Defendant, which has argued on every conceivable front, contends first that its safety inspections and services did not extend to the hoist, but that McClain made only casual and visual observations of the hoist as a matter of general interest. Considering the evidence most strongly in plaintiffs" favor and giving it every reasonable intendment favorable to them, as we must under the circumstances of the appeal, (Pennington v. McLean, Seeds v. Chicago Transit Co.

When queried directly as to the relationship between his periodic visits and the hoist, McClain stated: "I did not inspect this equipment as a man employed by Auchter or as *91 a man employed by any sub-contractor. I was interested in this piece of equipment as it related to the job as a whole, to whatever exposure was on the job. By exposure I mean injury or property damage." His activities bear out these admissions. In June, 1956, on his first visit after the hoist went into operation, McClain did many things which extended beyond casual observation. He determined the kind and operation of the safety device on the hoist; sighted to see if the guide rails, essential to the functioning of the safety device, were in good alignment; ascertained from Hodge that a drop test of the safety device had been made; discussed with Hodge the anticipated loading; determined the size and breaking point of the cable being used; calculated that the cable had a safety factor of seven times loaded capacity; determined the rigging of the hoist and how it had been changed; and discussed with Hodge the lubrication and maintenance of the cable. On the same visit, McClain, by his version, "suggested" to Hodge that the tower be grounded against lightning, although Hodge put it this way: "Early on the job McClain told me to get the tower grounded. I did that." Indeed, the proof shows without contradiction that every recommendation made by McClain was complied with.

On other occasions McClain checked to see if the tower had guy wires to keep it from toppling over, and inspected the brake drums for the presence of oil that might cause the brakes to slip. Further, it appears that he gave his attention to the hoist on every visit after it started operating, his specific testimony being: "On February 12 (the last visit before the occurrence) I made my usual visual observation of the tower. I saw the lift platforms going up and down and they seemed reasonably smooth. I didn"t notice anything out of order. * * * It was my custom when I visited the job to look at the cable between the swivel deflector sheave and the engine. I noticed nothing that gave me any particular concern." And while McClain"s trial *92 characterization of his conduct was "visual observation," the reports he made after each visit, before the question of liability arose, represented that he made inspections and surveys of machine hazards, one report form indicating that the insured was operating two builder"s hoists. In short, the tenor and intendment of all the evidence is that defendant"s gratuitous engineering services did extend to the hoist.

There is uncontradicted evidence in the record, including testimony of McClain himself, that in order to inspect a cable adequately it is necessary to clean off the grease at intervals, to run the hand along the cable feeling for spurs, to use a magnifying glass for close inspection and to use a spike to separate the strands in order to locate breaks in the valley of the rope. Similarly, there is evidence that a complete inspection of a sheave would entail the use of a groove guage, and of a hammer and a magnifying glass to test and seek for cracks. McClain did none of these things. Instead, he merely examined the sheave at the top of bail only insofar as he could see it from the ground and, as noted, only looked at the cable "between the deflector sheave and the motor." An experienced passenger elevator in