The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1895-10-19
mine Law INTERPRETED
Decision Of Supreme Court with Re.
gard to the Act Of 1891.
IT IS A LUzERNE COUNTY CASE
Verdict Obtained Agoinst the Kingston
Coal Company In tho Common Pleas
Court Stricken OFT, but 1t Stands
Against the Mine Foreman.

An opinion OF great interest to mine
owners was handed down by the SUI
preme court In the case OF Durkin
against the Kingston Coal company.
an appeal from the common pleas Of
Luzerne county. 1t Is of particular In
terest from the fact that 1t is one Of
the first cases tried under the law OF
1891, On the trial before Judge Lynch
a verdict Of 500 was given to the plain
tiff for the loss of the services of his
son, who was killed In the mines by rea-
son of the floor of gangway giving
way and precipitating him to the gang
way below.
The supreme cours directs that this
Kingston Coal company Is concerned
but allows It to stand as far as It re-
lates to foreman William Jones.
The case was tr!cd under the act Of
1891, which makes mine owners re-
sponslble In damages for accidents that
result from carelessness or inefficlency
OF employees. The supreme court ques-
tions the constitutionality OF part Of
that act. principally for the reason that
before a mine foreman or miner can
enter a mine he must have certificate
of competency granted by the state
Thus the employees ability Is vouched
for by the state and the mine owner
Is relieved of responsibility.
What the Opinion Snys.
The opinion in this case goes at
length into the discussion of this con-
tention and gives a full history OF the
acts which require certificates OF COM
potency. The opinion continues:
1t has been long settled that "A mining
noss or foreman Is fellow servant with
the other employees OF the same master
engaged In a common business, and that
the master is not liable for an injury
caused by the negligence of such mining
boss. The duty Of the mine owner Is to
employ competent bosses or foremen to
direct his operations. When he does this
he discharges the full measure of his
duty to his employees and he Is not liable
for an injury arising from the negligence
OF the foreman.
Now the act of 1891 undertakes to re-
verse the settled law upon this subject and
declare that the employer shall be respon-
sible Tor an injury to an employe resulting
from the negligence OF a fellow workman
Prior to the act of 1891 the man whose
negligence caused the Injury was alone
liable to respond In damages. He might
not always have property out Of which a
Judgment could be collected, but the plain
tin must In any case take his chances cf
the sovency OF the defendant against
whom his cause of action lies.
The act OF 1891 undertakes to furnish n
responsible defendant for the injured per-
son 10 pursue. Passinr' over the head OF
the fellow servant at whose hands the In
jury was received It fastens on the ow ner
OF the property on which the accident
haopened. and declares him to be the
guilty person on whose head the conse-
quences OF the accident shall fall To see
the true character Of this legisla ton we
must keep both lines OF objection In mini
The Cause OF the Juiury
We must remember that the injury
complained of Is due to the negligence cf
fellow workman for which the master
Is responsible neither In law nor morals
We must a lao remember that this fellow
workman has been designated by the
state his duties defined and his powers
conferred by statute. and his employment
made compulsory under heavy penalties
by the same statute.
Finally We must remember that 1t Is the
negligence of this fellow servant whose
competency the state has certified, and
whose employment the state has COM
PEELED. for which the employer Is made
liable. We have no doubt that so much
at least, OF section OF article II Of the act
Of 1891 imposes liability on the mine owner
for the failure OF the foreman TO comply
with the provisions OF the act which COM
pels his employment ard defines his duties
Is unconstitutional and void.
This disposes of this appeal so far as the
But why should the certified mine fore
man be relieved from the consequences Of
his negligence? The jury have found that
the Injury was due TO his want of atten-
tion to his proper duties, and his liability
Is clear without regard to our mining
laws. But the statute required him TO
examine the roads and ways in use In the
mine each day.
He knew the Aim OF rock separating the
upper from the lower working was but
all Ia iaE as 10 lyY tl,t
the supports for this film were not in line
with each other In the upper and lower
workings. He knew that layers OF the
rock were falling OF. that the thickness Of
the floor was reduced under the way on
which the accident occurred to about fve
feet, and that not far away II had fallen
down into the lower working: yet with all
this knowledge he did nothing. so far as
we can learn, to increase the security OF
the way.
Was q Neglect OF Dniy.
Whether his conduct be considered with
reference TO the statute. or regardless OF
II. his feature to do what he must have
known to be necessary. was a neglect Of
duty such as should render him liable 10
his fellow servant who has suffered from
II. Some difficulty has been suggested,
growing out OF the pleadings. but the dec.
laration Is not before us. We can not de-
termine therefore, whether an amend
ment IL necessary in order TO sustain the
judgment against him. We are not pre-
pared to hold the act OF 1891 to be uncor-
sti,utional as "A whole. II relates TO all
anthracite coal mines and defines what
shall be regarded as such mines.
Coal may be taken out OF the ground by
farm owners for their own use. or II may
be taken In such small quantities and for
such local purposes as to make the applI-
cation OF the mining laws to the operations
80 conducted not only unnecessary. but
burdensome to the extent OF absolute pro.
hbition Such limited or incipient opera
tions are not within the mischief. to rem
edy which the mining laws were devised.
They are ordinarily conducted for pur-
poses OF exploration or for family supply,
and ought not TO be classed with opera
lions conducted for the supply OF the
public. The business OF coal mining, like
that OF insurance or banking. may be de-
fined by the legislature. The definition
found In the act Of 1891 seems to us rea-
sonabie. to be within the fair limits OF a
legislative definition. and to exclude only
such operations as are too small to make
the general regulations provided by the
act applicable to them.
The ground on which We place our judg-
ment Is not therefore that the act Is
local, but that the provisions OF II which
we have considered are In violation OF the
bill OF rights. The judgment against
Kingston Coal company Is reversed for
reasons that are fatal to a recovery
against 1t. The judgment against Will
lu