The Clarksburg telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1874-1926, 1912-12-05
Lower Courtiis Reversed and
the Case is Remanded
a for New Trial.


the nine ana ignorance thereof on
the part Of the employee, injured by
such defect, are not sufficient to i'm
pose liability upon. The operator for
the injury" This is one of the
points in the decision Of the supreme
court of appeals in the case OF
Marion Peterson vs.. Paint Creek
Collieries Company. In the lower
court Peterson received a verdict
for $4,000 for the loss of an arm,
through alleged negligence ON the
part of the coal company to protect
the roof Of the nine. Jefferson was
injured as resri, of fall of slate.
The judgment OF the lower court
was reversed, the verdiit set aside
and the case remanded for new trial.
The opinion of the higher court was
written by Judge Poffenbarger.
an"Ig a coal mining company, hav-
ing employed a mine boss in COM
pliance with the statutory require
mpnts, GUST him from the discharge
OF his duties. respecting the care -
the roof of the mine and ma.1t>n.
ance of its safety. or relieve I'll"
therefrom and undertake the per
formance OF such duties itself, and
then permit such roof to remain or
become dangerous, and an employee
is injured by fall of slate or stone
therefrom, the negligence, IL any,
causing injury, is that of the COM
pany, not the mine boss, and the
former is liable" says the opinion
OF the suprme court.
1t is claimed, however, that this
was not the case with Peterson and
the mine boss. The same opinion
holds that "a coal mining company
is liable for injury to an employee
by fall of slate or stone. caused by
its failure to furnish the mine boss
machinery and materib necessary
to remove such dangerous slate or
stone or make it secure. upon notice
of his inability to do so for lack OF
such facilities and his demand there
for
Peterson yrs motorman. The
slate fell on his arm while he was
coupling cars near the mouth of tho
mine, and amputation of his arm
was necessary o;save his life. The
failure Ct the superintendent to rem
edy the danger after having his at
tention called to it, under the law,
relieved the coal company OF abil-
ity for damages.
Section II, of chapter 154 OF the
code makes it the duty of the NINE
boss to keep careful watch over
the ventllating apparatus, the air
ways, traveling-ways, pumps and
drainage; 10 cause all loose coal,
slate and rock overhead in the
working places and along the haul
ways to he removed or carefully Sc
cured so as to prevent danger to
persons employed in the mine; and
to cause sufficient props, caps and
timbers, as nearly as possible OF
suitable dimensions, to be furnished
for places where they are to be
used. Failure of. duty on the part
of The mine boss, respecting any of
these matters, resulting in injury to
any person working in the mine, i'm
poses. no liability upon his employer.
because, under many decisions Of
the supreme court Of appeals of this
state, he is held to be fellow ser.
want of the miners.
In another case. that of Dickin-
son VS.. Stuart Colliery Company, Ii
ability of the coal company was en-
tered. The case came up from Fay
cite county, and the judgment of
the lower court was affirmed in the
opinion written by Judge Miller.
suit was the result of an explosion
at the Stuart mine several years
ago, in which some seventy-five or
eighty persons were killed. X. II.
Dickson was appointed admins
traitor of Dallas E. Love, a boy I'M
der twelve years Of age. who was
killed in the explosion on January
q, 1907 After the plaintiff had
introduced all his ev dcncc y N"
lower rourt, on mct'on or the de-
PENDANT, the court struck ont all the
evidence and directed a verdict for
the coal cor'p'ay II was from this
action that The ease vas carried to
the supreme court 9ffappeals. The
higher court has confirmed the de-
cree Of the court below.
The opinion of the higher court
holds that the fact of an explos on
in coal mine is not prima facie
evidence of actionable negligence
on the part OF the owner or oper-
To-. nF fho p,tpa rhz r,,1o voc insa