Case Name: Tennessee Coal, Iron & R. Co. v. Hooper
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1914-12
Citations: 131 Tenn. 611
Docket Number: 
Parties: Tennessee Coal, Iron & R. Co. v. Hooper.
Judges: 
Reporter: Tennessee Reports
Volume: 131
Pages: 611–619

Head Matter:
Tennessee Coal, Iron & R. Co. v. Hooper.
(Nashville.
December Term, 1914.)
1. MASTER- AND SERVANT. Injuries to servant. Liability of master. Statute.
Under Acts 1903, ch. 237, requiring mine operators to employ foremen possessing specified qualifications, and providing that the foremen shall not be subject to the control of the operators in the performance of their statutory duties, an operator is not liable for the negligence of a foreman in the performance of such duties. (Post, pp. 613, 614.)
Acts cited and construed: Acts 1903, ch. 237.
Case cited and distinguished: Coal & Coke Co. v. Priddy, 117 Tenn., 169.
2. STATUTES. Amendment. Effect of invalidity.
Since Acts 1907, ch. 540, amending Acts 1903, ch. 237, so as to declare that a mine foreman is the agent of the operator in the performance of the duties required by the former statute, was not passed in the manner required by the constitution, the provisions of the former act under which the operator was not liable for the negligence of the foreman are still in effect. (Post, pp. 614-616.)
Acts cited and construed: Acts 1903, ch. 237; Acts 1907, ch. 540.
Case cited and approved: Roane Iron Co. v. Francis, 130 Tenn., 694.
ON REHEARING.
3. STATUTES. Enactment. Readings.
The fact that the bill which subsequently became Acts 1903, ch. 237, was substituted by the senate for another hill which had passed two readings, and tlie substituted bill was passed on only one reading, does not make- the act unconstitutional as not having passed three readings. (Post, p. 616.)
Cases cited and approved: Railroad v. Memphis, 126 Tenn., 292; Archibald v. Clark, 112 Tenn., 532.
4. STATUTES. Enactment. Change of title. Materiality.
Where the bill, which subsequently became Acts 1903, ch. 237, entitled “An act to provide for the .regulation and inspection of mines in this State, and for the safety, welfare, and protection of persons employed therein. . . . providing for penalties for violations of this act” was substituted on the third reading for a bill, entitled “an act to provide for the inspection and safe operation of coal mines and other mines, to protect the health and safety of persons in and about the mines of this State; for the protection of property connected therewith, and fixing the penalty for the violation of this act and to repeal all laws in conflict with this act,” the changes in the title were not so material as to make it unconstitutional, since the word “regulate” in the substituted title was sufficient to cover all the matters omitted from the original title. (Post, pp. 616-619.)
Cases cited and distinguished; Erwin v. State, 116 Tenn., 79; State, ex rel., v. Baseball Club, 127 Tenn., 292.
5. STATUTES. Title. Liability of mine owner.
The title to Acts 1903, ch. 237, “An act to provide for the regulation and inspection of mines in this State, and for the safety, welfare and protection of persons employed therein,” is sufficient to include the provisions of that bill relieving the owner of a mine in part from liability for the negligence of a foreman and making the foreman criminally responsible, since the legislature might consider that provision to be the most effective method of promoting the safety of the men employed therein. (Post, p. 619.)
FROM MARION.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Marion county to the Court of Civil Appeals, and by certiorari from the Court of Civil Appeals to the Supreme Court. — Na-thas Buckmar, Judge.
SpeaRs & Speaks, for plaintiffs in error.
J no. T. Raulstor, for defendant in error. -
The authorities on the question of liability of master for negligence of supervising employee employed pursuant to statute are presented in a note in 40 L. R. A. (N. S.), 945. As to statutory liability of employers for negligence of superintendents while participating in the work, see notes in 16 L. R. A. (N. S.), 601 and 21 L. R. A. (N. S.), 601. And as to liability of master for negligence of supervising employee in mine for acts done outside the scope of his statutory duty, see note in 48 L. R. A. (N. S.), 938.

Opinion:
Me. Justice Greer
delivered the opinion of the Gourt.
In this pase, Hooper, a miner, recovered a judgment for damages for personal injuries sustained while working in a mine of the Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad Company. This judgment was affirmed by the court of civil appeals, and a petition for certiorari has been granted.
The judgment was founded on the alleged failure of defendant below to keep the slate and rock overhead an entry in one of its mines removed or propped or secured against falling. Hooper was injured by a fall of slate.
Under chapter 237, Acts of 1903', the mine foreman is charged with the duty of keeping watch over entries and traveling ways so that, as the miners advance their excavations, all dangerous coal, slate, or rock overhead is taken down or secured against falling. This statute prescribes the qualifications of mine foremen, compels the operator io employ them, and further provides that such foremen shall not be subject to the control of the operator or owner in the discharge of their statutory duties. The performance of these du ties is secured by the imposition of a fine and imprisonment upon any foreman who neglects them.
Construing this act in the case of Coal & Coke Co. v. Priddy, 117 Tenn., 169, 96 S. W., 618, this court held that by reason of the provision which deprived the owner of control of the foreman, the owner was not liable for the negligence of such foreman. The court said:
"The relation of master and servant as to the duty referred to did not exist between the foreman, and the owner. To the existence of that relation it is essential that the master shall not only have control of the thing to be done, but also direction of the manner of its doing. It would be unreasonable and against conscience to hold him responsible for the consequences of an act, the doing of which had been, by express provision of law, placed beyond his control. " Coal & Coke Co. v. Priddy, 117 Tenn., 169, 96 S. W., 610.
Chapter 237 of the Acts of 1903 was amended by chapter 540 of the Acts of 1907. In the latter act it was declared, among other things, that the mine foreman should be considered the agent and representative of the operator or owner of the mine in the discharge of the duties required of said foreman by the act.
The negligence proven in this suit was the negligence of the mine foreman, and the lower courts, supposing chapter 540, Acts of 1907, to be a valid statute, consequently held the mine owner liable.
. In the recent case of Roane Iron Co. v. Francis, 130 Tenn., 694, 172 S. W., 816, we were forced to declare the amendatory act of 1907 invalid by reason of the failure of the legislature to observe constitutional requirements in the manner of its passage.
The amendment being invalid, the provisions of the original act as construed by this court in Coal & Coke Co. v. Priddy, supra, should have controlled this case. The mine owner was not liable for the injuries sustained by plaintiff below, inasmuch as the negligence averred and proven was the negligence of the mine foreman.
The judgment of the court of civil appeals, and of the circuit court must accordingly be reversed. The motion for peremptory instructions should have been sustained and the suit dismissed.