Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1897-06-05
HILES IS REVERSED.
New Trial Is Ordered In The Hand
Icy Damage Suit.
DAILY MINING co. Is DEFENDANT.
ilandl y Was Hurt In ths DAILY Mine
in 1895 aud sued for $4,000
Damages.

The Supreme court handed down an
opinion today In the case of William
Haudley vs. the Daily Mining COM
pany, vaoating and setting aside the
judgment OF the court below and
granting the appellant new trial.
The opinion Ia written by Justice
Miner and concutred In by Chief JUS
tice Y me and Justice Bartch.
This case was IN action brought by
Hnndley. m employee OF the DAILY
Mining company, in February, 1895,
to recover $4,000 as damages for
injuries received by him while ut work
in the uefendant cotnpany's mine, on
tn, 9th OF December, 1896.
The complaint alleges that early in
the morning Of the day named plaintiff
was descending the mine to ths 900
foot level. All at once the cage came
70 sudden stand still. throwing plain
tiff right over on hts face, injuring his
knee, bsck and hip Joint. The cause Of
tho accident 10 attributed to the In
competency OF the engineer named
Adamson.
The answer OF the Daily Mining
company denied specifically every al
legation named In the complaint. AT
the trial, which was mad BIZ
fore Judge Hiies on the lin
day OF June, 1876. at PARK City,
testimony was Introduced tending
to show that the accident would NOT
have occurred had there been n com.
petent engineer 10 charge, and that
Adamson had had several accidents
before, resulting In the death Of two
or three miners, ana hs1 bean laid of
ior accidents occurring. On the other
hand, testimony was also Introduced
10 ding to contradict this.
Alter the evidence was all in, the
court Instructed the jury to
bring In verdict for the de-
PENDANT csmpany. Plaintiff az
penled, claiming he was entitled
TO n judgment, because the testimony
showed Adamson's ino0mpetency and
that the defendsnt ought to he made
liable for It's negligence In employing
him.
The court holds that the evidence
went to show that the IL jury to plain.
titf would not have happened bus tor
the negligence OF the station tender IN
leaving the chairs 10 the shaft and OF
Acamson in not discovering 1t. These
two acts, the court says, contributed to
cause the accident. Tho opinion fur
ther reads: lN1t.1s
I'm case the injury ia caused by
accident, and the defendanl's negl-
gence concnrs TO the extent that the
accident would not have bappens ed but
for such negligence, he 10 liable for the
consequences.
"The distinction between concurripg
causea and intervening causes, lies not
SO much In the character of the act
done or omitted, but It's effect upon
the resnll--the difference between OBJ
tribution aud effect; and to this
1t must DO added that the
concurrent or succeeding negligence
must break the sequence Of events
TO make The cause OF Intervention.
The only available test 10, did the In
tervsDiDg cause, whether auim ate or
inauimate, break the tegusnce OF
eventt? II 80, IL Is a case OF intervening
negligence; otnsrwiss, case Of co.
operating, concurring, or contributory
negligence"
The negligence In this case the court
says was IN the deioudant keeping
Adamson In Its employ after knowing
he was Incompetent. While the
court expresses no opinion upon
the weight to be given tins
testimony, It holds that und,r
all the Iacip introduced at the trial,
the case should have gone TO the jury
and hence grants the appeal anu
orders new trial.
Brown, Henderson AMI King were
attorneys Tor plaintiff and appellant,
anu Bennett, Hardness and Bradley
anu Ill. j. Dinniny for the defendant
and respondent.