Court Opinion

ID: 7937875
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-08 23:11:34.460202+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:33:36.505462
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING.
Hooker, J.
The substance of the question which we are disposed to consider upon the rehearing of this cause is whether the fact that mining operations have proceeded beyond a given point in the stope, and the stopo has been “timbered” up to that point, changes the portion so timbered so that it is to be treated as a place to work, within the decisions requiring a master to furnish the servant a reasonably safe place to work. The alleged inaccuracy of the court, in statmg that the testimony showed that the miners had not put the newly-opened space in condition for the timber men, has no bearing upon this question; and we are satisfied Avith the proposition enunciated, — that the failure of the miners or boss to notify the timber men that the place was in readiness was the negligence of fellow-servants of the plaintiff.
But it was urged by counsel that in the discussion of the question the court neglected to consider the fact that, at the time of the accident, the last timbers set did not support the roof of the mine, the lagging being some distance below the roof, by reason of the caving or dropping of ore from the roof, above the lagging, until it left a *470space between the lagging and the roof of the mine, and that, as this increased the area of roof unsupported, it caused the ore to fall and injure the plaintiff. It is apparent that if we are to adhere to the holding that miners >and trammers are fellow-servants, and that the shift boss, like the foreman of a section gang, is not an exception, there can be no theory upon which the plaintiff can recover, except that, immediately the room was in readiness for timbers, it was the duty of the master to see that they were properly set and maintained. And it is obvious that this claim must be, as it is, planted upon the rule that, in appropriate cases, requires the master to provide a safe place.
The operation of mining, in this and similar mines, is to sink a shaft, and from the shaft start a drift, from which stopes or rooms are excavated across the vein, from the lower to the upper or hanging wall. It is accomplished by caving down and removing the ore. It is manifest that this cannot proceed unless the roof is supported behind the miners, and this is done by putting up timbers to support the roof until the ore shall be excavated beyond. It is said that, when the room has been excavated sufficiently large, it is the practice to cave the room down into the mining sets, and place more timbers on top of the first. Now, if this room can properly be said to be a place furnished to the servants in which to carry on the master’s business, and which he must, at his peril, keep in reasonably safe condition, as a factory or warehouse, then the case should have gone to the jury; but, if it is not such a place, then it falls within that other rule, that the duty of the master is performed by using reasonable care in furnishing suitable material and employing capable and efficient men to do the work.
In view of the cases of Schroeder v. Railroad Co., 108 Mich. 213, and Beesley v. F W. Wheeler & Co., 103 Mich. 196, cited in the former opinion, there is no doubt that a master must furnish a reasonably safe place for a ser*471vant to work, if a structure is required for the carrying on of his business; and the briefs furnished in this case upon the part of the plaintiff would render us more assistance, had they called our attention to cases establishing the claim that a master is obliged to make safe the place which the servant makes >and occupies as a means of doing his work, or which results as an incident of the work, although it necessitates his presence in a place, to a greater or less degree, unsafe. In such cases, must the master stay with, or follow up, the servants, to be certain that they make the place safe, so that they or some of them be not injured?
There are many cases which draw the distinction pointed out. Such a case is Beesley v. F. W. Wheeler & Co., supra. Several other cases are cited in the former opinion. In Fraser v. Lumber Co., 45 Minn. 237, it is said: “An important consideration, often overlooked, is whether the structure, appliance, or instrumentality is one which has been furnished for the work in which the servants are to be engaged, or whether the furnishing and preparation of it is itself part of the work which they are employed to perform.”
As we understand from the brief of counsel and the record, — and we do not discover a denial of it, — this stope or room starts from a drift at or near what is called the “foot wall,” which is the bottom as distinguished from the overlying stratum of the vein of ore. Both foot wall and top wall depart from the level, and dip sharply, so that, in running the stope on a level, it can go but a short distance until the top or overhanging wall is reached; and then the operation is repeated above the lagging, removing the lagging and caving down the roof, supporting the new roof thus formed by new sets placed upon the first. Thus, so far as the lagging is concerned, it has a temporary use merely to enable the miners to push the breast through to the overhanging wall, by supporting the roof. It is a part of the operation of mining,, *472as much as a blast or a staging, and is not a part of the permanent structure.
The following cases confirm us in our opinion that, as an incident or means of excavating the ore, the master has only the duty of furnishing competent men, and furnishing suitable materials for the use of those engaged in the common employment: Hall v. Johnson, 3 Hurl. & C. 589, where it was held that “an underlooker in a mine, whose duty it was to examine the roof, and prop it up if dangerous, was a fellow laborer with a workman.” Waddell v. Simoson, 112 Pa. St. 567, where it was decided that “the operator of a coal mine fulfills the measure of his duty to his employés if he commits his work to careful and skillful bosses and superintendents.” And in Consolidated Coal Co. v. Scheller, 42 Ill. App. 619, the court held that, if a master exercises reasonable or ordinary care in selecting men and materials, a mine owner is not liable if the roof falls. In Quincy Miming Co. v. Kitts, 42 Mich. 34, a workman was injured by a fall occasioned by the breaking of a bridge across a permanent opening, consisting of a winze or perpendicular shaft for ventilation in a mine. The timber man was held to be a fellow-servant, which excludes the theory contended for in this case. A case substantially like the one before us is Coal & Mining Co. v. Clay’s Adm’r, 51 Ohio St. 542 (cited in the former opinion).
We see no occasion to change or modify the opinion heretofore filed in this cause, which disposed of all questions necessary to a decision of the case.
Judgment affirmed.
The other Justices (Long, C. J., Grant, Montgomery, and Moore, JJ.) concurred.