The Wallace miner. [volume] (Wallace, Idaho) 1907-current, 1918-09-05
SOME LEGAL DECISIONS
MINE SHAFT ACCIDENTS
POINTS OF LAW OF DIRECT IN
TEREsT TO NINE EMPLOY.
ERS AND EMPLOYEES

cheering and Mining JournaD.
The courts have been called upon
on several occasions to express an
opinion on accidents where miners
have been injured by objects falling
down mine shafts, and a few recent
cases clearly illustrate the law cover
ing the subject.
Oklahoma Case.
In an oklahoma case Dosage Coal
and Mining Co. VS.. Miozvany) 1t was
shown that a miner was working at
the bottom of one compartment of a
shaft, and while so engaged he was
struck on the head and killed by
lump of coal which fell down the shaft
after being knocked from the bunting
OF the tipple by an ascending cage in
another compartment, The court found
that the evidence tended to show that
the lump of coal had been left on the
bunting by an overloaded car; and,
as this raised question of negligence,
held that 1t was matter for the jury,
The court also held that it was a
question for the jury to determine
whether the failure on the part of the
defendant to furnish a properly con-
structed bonnet or other appliance for
the protection Of the deceased from
falling coal amounted to negligence.
Missouri Case.
In Missouri case (Ridenour VS..
Wilcox Mines Co, 1874 Mo. App. SIG,
1922 the plaintiffs father was a
tub hooker who sustained injuries re-
sulting in his death while working In
the bottom of shaft when struck on
the head by large piece of rock
which fell from can being hoisted
IN the shaft. The plaintiff alleged
that the defendant "carelessly and
negligently failed to build or cause
to- be built box or continuation of
said shaft from the place where 1t en-
tered into the said underground room
or drift to or near the floor of said
drift, so that cans ascending from
said room or drift would be guided
by said box or continuation of said
shaft and render said cans less liable
and so that any rocks or boulders fall
ing down from said cans would fall
straight down" 1t was contended by
the defendant that this petition did
{ NM ettFf al nf
ton, in that it did not show a connec-
ton between the defendants neglig-
ence and the death of the plaintiff.
The court, however did not coincide
with this view, but held that cause
OF action was sufficiently alleged, and
allowed verdict of $4,000 in favor
OF the plaintiff
Michigan Case.
In Michigan case MAXI VS.. Mo-
hawk Mining Co, 176 Mich, 497, 1919
trammer in defendants mine was
put % work for the first time as a
mucker In one of the mine shafts.
While so engaged he was struck and
injured by a loaded bucket, which
broke away from the wire rope cable
by which it was being hoisted. 1t
was shown that the shaft had an in
cline of SO degrees and was completed
to the 18th level. and at the time of
the injury the work had proceeded to
the 14th level. or nearly so, the rock
taken out being hoisted to the 18th
Law to-
started up the shaft, one of the en-
poyes took hold of the rim of the
bucket with one hand and told another
workman to do the same They then
gave their disengaged hands to third
miner, and in this way all three were
hoisted with the loaded bucket. After
they had passed out of the perpen-
dicular part of the shaft and had en-
tered the part inclining at angle
OF 36 degrees they released their hold
on the bucket. 1t passed up about
10 feet higher, the cable suddenly
parted and before the plaintiff could
get out Of the way he was struck by
the loaded bucket.
The defendant contended that having
furnished a safe cable 1t was incum-
bent upon the employees to make in
spection of it before using it in any
such manner as indicated. But the
court held that it was not only the
duty of the defendant to furnish Il
safe cable, but to reasonably inspect
it, so that it would remain safe.
Kentucky Case.
In a Kentucky case (Saylor VS.. Bon
Jelico Coal Co. 1873 Ky. 474, 1919 the
plaintiff was injured while working
at the bottom of an airshaft in the de-
PENDANTS mine by the fall of a piece
Of rock weighing about s pounds, which
struck him on the head The court
held that II was not only necessary
for the plaintiff to allege negligence
on the part of the employer and to
show facts amounting thereto but to
slow that the injury resulted from
such negligence. In this case, there
was no evidence to show that the in
jury was due to the negligence of the
employer or any of his servants. There
was no evidence to show how the rock
happened to fall down the shaft or