Case ID: pa_149/html/0410-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Massey, Appellant, v. Snowden et al.
    
      Negligence—Mine—Mining boss—Contributory negligence.
    
    The plaintiff, a “ boss hauler” in defendants’ mine, while attemptingto “ sprag” or brake a cai\ stepped on a large piece of slate alongside of the track, his foot slipped and the car ran over his leg. He had been over the road once before that day. A “mining boss” was employed by defendants. Held, in a suit by plaintiff for damages, that under all the circumstances of the ease it was proper to give binding instructions for the defendants.
    
      Argued May 9, 1892.
    Appeal, No. 63, Jan. T., 1891, by plaintiff, William Massey, from judgment of C. P. Fayette Co., Dec. T., 1886, No. 148, on verdict for defendants, Charles L. Snowden et al, trading as C. L. Snowden & Co.
    Before Paxson, C. J., Green, McCollum, Mitchell and Heydrick, JJ.
    On the trial before Ingraham, P. J., the evidence was to the following effect: Plaintiff was employed in defendants’ mine as “ boss hauler,” and had been so employed for three months before the accident. While conducting a car along a tramway in the mine, he came to a place where the grade required the application of a brake. Plaintiff attempted to “sprag” the car, i. e., put a piece of wood called a “ sprag ” in one of the wheels to lock it, when the “ sprag ” flew out. He then seized the “ hitching ” (an iron for coupling the cars and sometimes used as a “ sprag ”) and attempted to “ sprag ” the car with it. While so doing he stepped on a piece of slate about 18 inches square and 6 to 8 inches thick, his foot slipped and went under the car, and he was so injured that his leg had to be cut off below the knee. The slate was up against the rib or side of the road, which at this point was about a foot from the rail. The slate had doubtless fallen from the roof. Plaintiff had been over the road once before on the day of the accident. Defendants employed a “ mining boss,” who had been employed in that capacity at this mine for some years. The plaintiff offered some evidence tending to show that the mining boss was incompetent; but the evidence offered by the defendants of his competency was very strong. The defendants’ first point, affirmed, was “ That under all the evidenóe in this case the plaintiff is not entitled to recover and the verdict must be for the defendants.”
    
      Error assigned, among others, was the affirmance of defendants’ first point, quoting it.
    
      R. P. Kennedy and Edward Campbell, for appellant.
    
      S. L. Mestrezat, with him R. H. Lindsey, for appellees.—
    The evidence of the incompetency of the mining boss was insufficient to submit to the jury.
    Defendants are not responsible for the carelessness or negligence of the mining boss: Act of April 28, 1877, P. L. 58; Redstone Coke Co. v. Roby, 115 Pa. 364; Lehigh Valley Coal Co. v. Jones, 86 Pa. 432; Bridge Co. v. Newberry, 96 Pa. 246; Reese v. Biddle, 112 Pa. 72; Waddell v. Simoson, 112 Pa. 567.
    May 23, 1892:
   Per Curiam,

Judgment affirmed.