Case Name: D. CASTELLINI, Respondent, v. THE MAMMOTH MINING COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant
Court: Utah Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Utah
Decision Date: 1903-06-08
Citations: 26 Utah 178
Docket Number: No. 1454
Parties: D. CASTELLINI, Respondent, v. THE MAMMOTH MINING COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant.
Judges: BASKIN, C. J., and McCARTT, J., concur.
Reporter: Utah Reports
Volume: 26
Pages: 178–179

Head Matter:
D. CASTELLINI, Respondent, v. THE MAMMOTH MINING COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant.
No. 1454.
(72 Pac. 1103.)
(Decided June 8, 1903.)
Appeal from the Fifth District Court, Millard County. —Eon. .Thomas Marioneaux, Judge.
Action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been occasioned by the negligence of the defendant. The cause was transferred on change of venue from Juab to Millard county. ■ Prom a judg-men in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant appealed.
Affirmed (on authority of Jenkins v. Mammoth Mining Company, 24 Utah 513; Morgam, v. Mammoth Mining Company, 26 Utah 174.)
J. W. N. Whitecotton, Esq., for appellant.
Messrs. Powers, Straup & Lippma/n for respondent.

Opinion:
BARTCH, J.
The plaintiff brought this suit to recover damages for personal injuries, which he alleged he received because of the negligence of the defendant company. - It appears he was in the employ of the company, working in its mine as a miner, and, on the occasion of the accident which caused the injury complained of, was being lowered in a cage through the company's shaft to his place of work. While being thus lowered, the cage struck the chairs at the 800-foot' level, and stopped suddenly, causing injury to him and others with him in the cage. The essential facts relating to the accident and its canse are the same as those in the cases of Jenkins v. Mammoth Min. Co., 24 Utah 513, 68 Pac., 845, and of Morgan v. Mammoth Min. Co., 26 Utah 174, 72 Pac. 688; the plaintiff in each of those suits having been injured in the same accident and at the same time with this plaintiff. All the questions of law presented herein were considered and decided in those cases, and upon the authority of those decisions the judgment in this case must he affirmed, with costs. It is so ordered.
BASKIN, C. J., and McCARTT, J., concur.