Mohave County miner., 1899-08-19
LATEST MINING DECISIONS.
Prepared by Andrews & Murdock
Berrien Springs, Mich.

temporary injunction against the
removal of ore from the mining land OF
a complainant will not be dissolved be.
cause of defendants solvency.
"A mine owner is liable for the death
of an employe caused by the superin-
tendent's failure to do do what due
diligence required of him, because he
was acting under excitement.
A mine superintendent will be pre-
suIned to have authority to purchase
all appliances necessary to extinguish
a fire to save the life of an employe, in
the absence of evidence to the con-
trary.
An employers failure to use due dill
igence in rescuing an employe while in
a mine in which fire is started is not
excused by his acting pursuant to the
unanimous opinion of other opera
tives.
An employe, placed in imminent
peril, is not guilty of cotributory neg
ligence, precluding recovery for his
employers negligently causing his
death, by mistakenly failing to avail
himself of means to escape, where he
acted as a man of ordinary care would
have done under the circumstances.
In an action for causing an employees
death by suffocation i'm a mine, an allie
CATION that the superintendent negli-
gently failed to take due and proper
precautions to prevent fire from
causing the suffocation is sufficient
allegation of negligence, as an aver
ment of specific negligence is not re-
quired.
Where fire is raging in the middle
of a mine, while an employe is below
the fire, it is a mine owners duty to
telegraph to distant city and hire
special to obtain appliances with which
to extinguish the fire, if such is the
only means of saving the employees
life, as the rule of diligence, when life
is at stake, requires the doing of every
thing that gives reasonable promise of
its preservation, regardless of difficult
ties and expense.
In an action for causing the death of
a mine employe through the employers
failure to extinguish a fire by water,
while the employe was 400 feet below
the fire, evidence that several months
previously pipe line to a river had
been laid is admissible to show the
feasibility of getting water through
that line, if it still existed, or through
a line to be relaid, if it had bsen taken
up, in time to extinguish the fire before
the employees death.
In action for causing the suffocation
of an employe, while 400 feet below
fire i'm mine, by smothering the fire
bratticing slope and air course, there
was evidence that the employe could
have lived few days, until the en-
ployer could have procured appliances
for sxtinguishing the fire with water
Held, that witness testimony that he
was satisfied that the return air course
was on fire, and the testimony of the
superintendent that at the time he
bratticed up the mine there was moth
ing he could have done to save the em-
ploye, were properly rejected as being
mere conclusions.
A fire originated in the middle of a
mine, and volumes of smoke rose from
the air shaft. A short time thereafter
men passed up slope parallel with
the air shaft without much difficulty
with smoke, until they reached point
opposite the fire. There we're were no
appliances at hand for extinguishing
the fire by water, but they could have
been obtained in few days by tele-
graphing. One man, at the bottom Of
the mine, could have lived several days
while the fire was raging. if it had orig
mated in the air shaft, and had quickly
penetrated to the slope, and the air
shaft was large enough to carry the
smoke and gases as rapidly as they
were generated. The mine superin-
tendent smothered the fire by sealing
up the air shaft and slope. and an en-
ploye who was below the fire was snffo
Gated. Held, a question for the jury
whether the superintendent. was guilty
of negligence justifying recovery
Bessemer Land and Improvement
Company VS.. Campbell, % So. Rep.
(Ala.) 793.