Case Name: PETAJA v. AURORA IRON MINING CO.
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1895-09-27
Citations: 106 Mich. 463
Docket Number: 
Parties: PETAJA v. AURORA IRON MINING CO.
Judges: The other Justices concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 106
Pages: 463–472

Head Matter:
PETAJA v. AURORA IRON MINING CO.
Master and Servant — Injury to Laborer in Mine — Doctrine oe “Safe Place Eellow-Serv ants. *
Plaintiff was employed in defendant’s mine at loading upon cars and removing the ore as it was brought to the floor by the miners. As fast as the ore was removed, it was the practice to support the roof by a system of timbering, largely temporary in character, which was put in place by a force of men kept for that purpose, upon notiScation by the miners themselves or by the shift boss, who had charge of the work in the mine, subject to the general supervision of a mining captain. Before a newly-opened space had been timbered, and before the timber men had been notified that their services were required, plaintiff was injured by a fall of ore from the roof. Shortly before the accident, the attention of the shift boss had been directed to indications of danger, bnt he said that the roof was all right, and instructed the men to resume work. Held: '
(1) That, whether the injury was caused by excavating too large a space without placing the timbers, or whether it resulted from the fact that the timbering previously erected had ceased to support the roof by reason of the subsequent dropping of ore therefrom, thus leaving too great an area unsupported, the case was not within the rule requiring the master to provide the servant with a reasonably safe place in which to work; that The so-called “ place ” was a mere incident of the mining operations, the result of the'common labor of those employed in the mine; and that the master’s duty was discharged by the exercise of reasonable care in furnishing suitable material and employing competent men to do the work.
(2) That, if there was any negligence, it was that of the miners or of the shift boss, who were fellow-servants of plaintiff,
Error to Gogebic; Haire, J.
Submitted June 14, 1895;,
original opinion, September 27,1895.
Rehearing granted December 30, 1895; final opinion, in affirmance of the earlier one, April 21, 1896.
Case by Sehfanja Retaja, alias Sam Johnson, against the Aurora Iron Mining Company for personal injuries. From a judgment for defendant, upon verdict directed by the court, plaintiff brings error.
Affirmed.
Julius J. Patek, for appellant.
Clark & Pearl, of counsel for appellant:
There was negligence in failing to notify plaintiff of the special danger, and assuring him of safety without making proper examination. Cooley, Torts, 661; Railway Co. v. Bayfield, 37 Mich. 210; Swoboda v. Ward, 40 Mich. 424; Brydon v. Stewart, 2 Macq. H. L. Cas. 30, 33 Eng. L. & Eq. 1; Coal Co. v. McGuire, 3 Macq. H. L. Cas. 300; Mellors v. Shaw, 1 Best & S. 437; Ryan v. Fowler, 24 N. Y. 410; Railroad Co. v. Swett, 45 Ill. 197; Schooner Norway v. Jensen, 52 Ill. 373; Snow v. Railroad Co., 8 Allen, 441; Coombs v. Cordage Co., 102 Mass. 572; Walsh v. Peed Valve Co., 110 Mass. 23; Perry v. Marsh, 25 Ala. 659; Strahlendorf v. Rosenthal, 30 Wis. 674; Grizzle v. Frost, 3 Fost. & F. 622; Railroad Co. v. Baugh, 149 U. S. 368, 387; Mather v. Rillston, 156 U. S. 391.
The master must furnish the servant with a reasonably safe place in which to perform his work. Swoboda v. Ward, 40 Mich. 420; Parkhurst v. Johnson, 50 Mich. 70; Huizega v. Lumber Co., 51 Mich. 272; James v. Mining Co., 55 Mich. 335; Smith v. Car Works, 60 Mich. 501; Adams v. Iron Cliffs Co., 78 Mich. 271; VanDusen v. Letellier, Id. 492; Brown v. Gilchrist, 80 Mich. 56; Morton v. Railroad Co., 81 Mich. 423; Sadowski v. Car Co., 84 Mich. 100; Roux v. Lumber Co., 85 Mich. 519; Palmer v. Railroad Co., 87 Mich. 281, 93 Mich. 363; Tangney v. Wilson & Co., 87 Mich. 453; Schlacker v. Mining Co., 89 Mich. 253; Ragon v. Railway Co., 91 Mich. 379; Gregg v. Railway Co., Id. 624; Dewey v. Railway Co., 97 Mich. 332, 342; Mather v. Rills-ton, 156 U. S. 391.
The shift boss was not a fellow-servant of plaintiff. Mining Co. v. Kitts, 42 Mich. 39; James v. Mining Co., 55 Mich. 336; Hunn v. Railroad Co., 78 Mich. 515; Harrison v. Railroad Co., 79 Mich. 409; Lyttle v. Railway Co., 84 Mich. 289; Fox v. Iron Co., 89 Mich 387; Palmer v. Railroad Co., 93 Mich. 363; Erickson v. Railway Co., Id. 414; Ryan v. Fowler, 24 N. Y. 416; Flike v. Railroad Co , 53 N. Y. 549; McKinney, Fellow Servants, p. 54; Gardner v. Railroad Co., 150 U. S. 349.
Julius J. Patek (Clark & Pearl and Cahill & Ostrander, of counsel), for appellant, on rehearing:
An employé assumes only such risks as are incident to his employment, and do not arise from the negligence of his employer or his deputies in authority over him and his work. Railroad Co. v. Ward, 90 Va. 687; Davis v. Railroad Co., 159 Mass. 532; Elingsworth v. Electric Light Co., 161 Mass. 583; Schulz v. Railway Co., 57 Minn. 271; Railroad Co. v. Shivell, (Ky.) 18 S. W. Rep. 944; Railway Co. v. Hamilton, (Tex.) 30 S. W. Rep. 679; Schlereth v. Railway Co., 115 Mo. 87; Murphy v. Railroad Co, Id. 111; Elledge v. Railway Co., 100 Cal. 282; Promer v. Railway Co, 90 Wis 215; Johnson v Spear, 76 Mich. 139; Engel v. Smith, 82 Mich. 1; Irvine v. Railroad Co., 89 Mich. 416; Piette v. Brewing Co., 91 Mich. 605; Cregg v. Railway Co., Id. 624; Craven v. Smith, (Wis.) 61 N. W. Rep. 317.
Cahill & Ostrander, of counsel for appellant, on rehearing:
Plaintiff was entitled to as safe a place to work in as due care on the part of the master would permit, and this duty of the master to furnish a safe place could not be delegated to others so as to relieve him from responsibility for their wapt of care. Kelley v. Mining Co., 16 Mont. 484; Railway Co. v. Jarvi, 53 Fed. Rep. 65; Mining Co. v. Ingraham, 70 Fed Rep. 219; Balhoff v. Railroad Co., post (65 N. W. Rep 592); James v. Mining Co., 55 Mich. 335; Palmer v. Railroad Co., 87 Mich. 290; Pantzar v. Mining Co., 99 N. Y. 368; Coal Co. v. Wombacher, 134 Ill. 57; Mining Co. v. Schaad, 15 Colo. 197.
Charles B. Miller, for appellee:
The doctrine of “safe place” is not applicable to the facts of this case (Hoar v. Merritt, 62 Mich. 386; Beesley v. F. W. Wheeler & Co., 103 Mich. 196; Manning v. Railway Co., 105 Mich. 260; Butler v. Townsend, 126 N. Y. 110; Killea v. Faxon, 125 Mass. 485; Peschel v. Railway Co., 62 Wis. 338); and therefore any negligence of the shift boss would be that of a fellow-servant (Bailey, Mast. Liab. 270; Mining Co. v. Kitts, 42 Mich. 39; Adams v. Iron Cliffs Co., 78 Mich. 288; Dewey v. Railway Co., 97 Mich. 332; Beesley v. F. W. Wheeler & Co., 103 Mich. 196; Jenkins v. Iron Ore Co., 10 N. Y. Supp. 484; Geoghegan v. Steamship Co., 22 N. Y. Supp. 749).
Upon rehearing, counsel cited, upon the question of safe place, the following additional authorities: Fraser v. Lumber Co., 45 Minn 235; Mining Co. v. Clay’s Adm’r, 51 Ohio St. 542; Schroeder v. Railroad Co., 103 Mich. 213; McGinty v. Reservoir Co., 155 Mass. 183; Coal Go. v. Scheller, 42 Ill. App. 619; Waddell v. Simoson, 112 Pa. St. 567.

Opinion:
Hooker, J.
Plantiff, a trammer in defendant's iron mine, was injured by the fall of ore from the roof of the room in which he was at work loading ore into a car. The work was conducted as follows: The miners loosened and brought down the ore to the floor of the stope or room made by taking out the ore, which room was constantly being enlarged by the process. This ore was loaded upon ears and removed by common laborers, called "trammers." As fast as the ore was removed, it was the practice to support the roof by timbers and posts set a few feet apart. These were called "sets," and were put in place by a force or gang of men who were called from place to place, as wanted, upon notice from the miners themselves, or through the shift boss or foreman, who had charge of the work of the mine. Above the shift boss was a captain, who had general supervision of the work in the mine. The posts were placed about eight feet apart, a set being eight feet square. The post, being two feet in diameter, was capped and braced, and covered with lagging to support the roof, which had a tendency to crumble. Sometimes large masses of ore would fall, as in this instance. The drift or vein was twelve sets wide, and the room in question was being mined across the vein, about forty feet of the vein being its length, while it would be about one hundred feet wide across the vein, when completed. The miners had taken out sufficient ore to make room for five sets into the vein, and so much appears to have been properly timbered up. At the time of the accident they had mined a space in advance of the last set, which the plaintiff claims was wider than should have been taken without support. The testimony differs about its width, but there is evidence that it was not sufficiently cleaned out to permit of-timbering at the time of the accident, and this does not seem to have been disputed. Some indications of danger were noticed by the trammers, who called the attention of the shift boss to it, but, after looking at it, he told them it was all right, and to "quit monkeying," and resume work, which they did. The accident occurred about 30 minutes later. The court directed a verdict for the defendant.
The claim of the plaintiff is that the master did not furnish a safe place to work. In our opinion, this place where the men were at work was an incident of mining. It was a result of the common work of the miner and the trammer, both of whose labor combined to make it. After the miner had loosened the ore, and the trammer had removed it, it was ready for the timber men, who followed up when notified, -putting in sets, which enabled the process of mining to be carried further. The undisputed evidence shows that the trammers and miners had not. put the newly-opened space in condition for the timber men, and that the miners had not caused them to be notified that their services were required. If there can be said to have been culpable negligence, it was either in mining too large a space before cutting out the corners preparatory for the sets, or in failing to notify the timber men if sets could have been put in before the ore was still further removed. In either case, if the fault of the miner, it was the negligence of a fellow-servant under the plainest rules. And the same is true if it was through a failure upon the part of the shift boss to cause timbering to be done earlier. He was a foreman, who directed When and where blasts should be put in, and where the men should work, and who was appealed to to settle questions arising as the work progressed. His relation to the men under him was similar to that of a foreman of a section gang upon a railroad to his men, or one in charge of workmen upon a train. Schroeder v. Railroad Co., 103 Mich. 213. Unless it can be said that the duty to furnish a safe place to work is involved, the court was right in directing a verdict for defendant.
There are duties which a master owes to emplbyés, which he must perform; and, while he may confide the performance of such to another, the obligation is still the master's, and he cannot avoid it by authorizing another to perform the act. In such oases it is not an answer to say that he has provided a competent agent, although such agent may be a fellow workman, and in many things a fellow servant, of the injured person. This question has been discussed of late, and authorities cited, in the opinion of Mr. Justice Montgomery in the case of Schroeder v. Railroad Co., supra. See, also, Beesley v. F. W. Wheeler & Co., 103 Mich. 196. In the latter case the distinction between temporary places built to assist in construction, as stagings, and permanent places, within which men are expected to perform labor, is pointed out. The only difference between the Beesley case and this is that in the former the staging was preliminary to the work of construction, while in this it was an incident of the work being done; and we see no difference in principle. The same distinction was made in the case of Coal & Mining Co. v. Clay's Adm'r, 51 Ohio St. 542. This was a case of injury resulting from a failure to support the roof of a mine, and the court say:
"We need not discuss this proposition, for we have not that case. Here the place was not furnished as in any sense a permanent place of work, but was a place in which surrounding conditions were constantly changing; and, instead of being a place furnished by the master for the employés, within the spirit of the decisions referred to, Avas a place the furnishing and preparation of which was in itself part of the work which they were employed to perform. The distinction is shown in a number 'of cases" (which are cited in the opinion).
See, also, Butler v. Townsend, 126 N. Y. 110; Benzing v. Steinway, 101 N. Y. 547; Stringham v. Hilton, 111 N. Y. 188.
It folloAvs that the judgment should be affirmed.
The other Justices concurred.