The Wallace miner. [volume] (Wallace, Idaho) 1907-current, 1920-04-15
RIGHTS OF WORKMEN
TO RECOVER DAMAGES
MAY NOT ALWAYS BE DETER
MINED BY POSTED NOT
ICES AND RULES.

The supreme court of Kansas was
asked to reverse the judgment for
compensation obtained by an en-
ployee against the Edgar Zinc com
pany. says the Engineering and Min
ing Journal The plaintiff was en-
gagged i'm feeding coarse ore into
crusher. Occasionally. piece of ore
on account of its size, would not go
between the rollers and a long-hand-
led maui was furnished him for the
purpose of breaking such pieces Of
ten small pieces of iron which could
not be crushed or forced through the
rollers were found in the ore and
were jeFlzed out from the rollers by
a stick At the time of the accident
La fragment of ore or scrap of iron had
become lodged between the rollers
and stopped them The plaintiff pick
ed up short stick and undertook to
pry it out as he had often done be-
fore The rollers started up. jerking
the stick through them and injuring
him. He said he used the stick be-
cause the maui would not dislodge the
iron, and that he had seen others use
such a stick
Disregarded Notice.
Immediately i'm front OF his working
place the mine superintendent, G. w.
Whipple had posted notice to shut
down the machinery until the rollers
were cleared, should they become
choked. The plaintiff knew this rule
% al
means of an electric switch near his /
working place
I'm its opinion the supreme court .
said it was not material that plaintiff /
may have been guilty of a high de-
gree Of negligence. Under the English
act, and the laws of several states to
warrant a reversal the court must de-
'lare as a matter of law that the in
uries resulted from a serious and
villml misconduct" of the workman.
md, even under the Kansas act. the
mere voluntary and Intentional omis-
ion OF workman to use a guard or
protection furnished him is not neces-
arly TO be regarded as wilful (16s S
'ac 1OSO. a
Now. the maui appears to have been G
lrnished To break pieces of ore where $
ecessary- Ito prevent rather than to t
amedy the choking of the rollers, the s
tier situation being provided for by r.
he direction TO shut down the ma 5
mnery. The fact that the workman a
ed another and less safe instrument r.
nan the one furnished, is not equiva- h
mt TO his refusal to use an available
lard or protection against the dan
er to which his injury was due. said
he court W
The Courts Ruling. b,
But the question whether the fail in
re TO stop the machinery brought the CO
orkman within the exception Of the p
w was more difficult The COM ds
.nys rule requiring the machinery to ito
shut down was a reasonable and ks
oper guard and protection against pa
e risk i'm a sense only. For, said the ed
urt, IL that construction were adopt co
it would seem that a recovery hi
nuld be prevented whenever a work RI
an was injured in consequence Of ka
5 neglecting to follow a rule adopt tr,
by his employer for his benefit The
art concluded this was not the kind
delinquency that was within the
nd OF the legislature when IL denied fri
recovery 20 enc who was injured Sin,
cough his willful failure to use 81,
ard ~
Recovery against tie zinc company cor
8 affirmed he.