Case Name: Island Coal Company v. Swaggerty
Court: Supreme Court of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1901-01-16
Citations: 159 Ind. 664
Docket Number: No. 19,643
Parties: Island Coal Company v. Swaggerty.
Judges: 
Reporter: Indiana Reports
Volume: 159
Pages: 664–671

Head Matter:
Island Coal Company v. Swaggerty.
[No. 19,643.
Filed January 16, 1901.
Rehearing denied January 13, 1903. ]
Negligence. — Assumption of Risk. — Violation of Statutory Duty. — Master and Servant. — The doctrine of assumption of risk does not apply to a case where the injury occurs by reason of the negligent nonobservance by the master of a'positive and fixed duty enjoined by statute, pp. 667.
Master and Servant. — Fellow Servant. — Mines.—A mine owner is not relieved under the fellow servant rule from liability for an injury sustained by a mine employe because of the failure of the mine boss, who represented the owner in the mine, to stop the elevator in its descent by pulling the cord attached to the whistle valve, pp. 667-669.
Negligence. — When Question of Fact. — Whether a mine boss who stood at the bottom of an elevator shaft at the edge of a pit or sump which plaintiff was engaged in cleaning out was guilty of negligence in failing to signal the engineer to stop the elevator in its descent was a question of fact for the determination of the jury. pp. 669-671.
Erom Daviess Circuit Court; D. J. JBJefron, Judge. '
Action by William E. Swaggerty against the Island Coal Company for personal injuries. Erom a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
O. JE. Barrett, G. G. Gardiner and W. JR. Gardiner, for appellant.
G. E. Davis and W. V. Moffett, for appellee.

Opinion:
Baker, J.
— This cause has been transferred here because the Appellate Court was equally divided on the questions involved. Island Coal Co. v. Swaggerty, 27 Ind. App. 697.
Appellee had judgment against appellant for damages for personal injuries, the proximate cause of which was alleged to be appellant's failure to comply with certain provisions of the statutes in relation to the operation of coal mines. The assignments challenge the sufficiency of the complaint and the correctness of the ruling denying a new trial. The controlling questions relate to assumption of risk and contributory negligence, and were decided adversely to appellant's contention in Davis Coal Co. v. Polland, 158 Ind. 607.
We find no error in the record. Judgment affirmed.