The court in Broderick v. Cauldwell-Wingate Co. ( supra, p. 188) very clearly set forth this principle in the following language: "It appears established that when a person in the capacity of a superior assumes control over a workman on a job and directs him to proceed under circumstances recognizable as dangerous, the subordinate workman has little, if any, choice in the matter but to obey it and, if he stays within the limits of the superior's instructions and is injured, he may not be penalized by a claim of contributory negligence as a matter of law. While, with the Labor Law aside, this issue remains in the case (cf. Koenig v. Patrick Constr. Corp., 298 N.Y. 313) it survives as a question of fact for the jury ( Thomas v. Solvay Process Co., 216 N.Y. 265; Zurich Gen. Accident Liability Ins. Co. v. Childs Co., supra)." In this type of case we often find two factors which permit us to sustain liability despite the actor's knowledge of possible danger; the first a direction by a superior to do the act and second, an economic compulsion or other circumstance which equally impels him to follow the direction.