Abstracts of Current Decisions on Mines and Mining: October to December, 1915 Page: 23
x, 74 p.View a full description of this report.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
STATUTES RELATING TO MINING OPERATIONS.
NEGLIGENCE OF MINE SUPERINTENDENT OR FOREMAN.
OPERATOR NOT LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE OF MINE FOREMAN.
The bituminous mining act of Pennsylvania of 1911 places the
management of the inner workings of bituminous coal mines in the
hands of a certified mine foreman, and neither he nor his assistants
whom he appoints are agents of the mining company and the com-
pany is not responsible for their acts unless it has notice that an
emergency or danger has arisen demanding immediate action and
that the mine foreman and his assistants are not discharging their
duties with regard thereto; but the mining company is responsible
if it has failed to comply with the orders of the mine foreman.
Vagaszki v. Consolidated Coal Co., 225 Federal, 913, p. 915.
KNOWLEDGE OF DANGEROUS CONDITIONS --OPERATOR LIABLE FOR
FOREMAN'S NEGLIGENCE.
The Pennsylvania mining act of 1891 does not relieve a mine
operator from liability for his own neglect or failure of duty; and if
through any neglect or failure of duty he causes injury to one of his
employees the general rule applicable in such cases subjects the
owner to damages for such default, and if there is a dangerous condi-
tion existing in the mine which is permitted by the negligence of a
mine foreman resulting in injury to an employee, the mine owner
will be responsible if he has knowledge of the fact and takes no
steps to remove it, as the owner can not neglect his duty and escape
liability, and the statute expressly provides that the owner shall use
every precaution to insure the safety of the workmen in all cases
whether provided for in the act or not.
McCollom v. Pennsylvania Coal Co. (Pennsylvania), 95 Atlantic, 380, p. 381, May, 1915.
KNOWLEDGE OF NEGLIGENCE OF MINE FOREMAN.
When a mine owner has knowledge of conditions in a mine which
are hazardous to employees, or has knowledge of the failure of the
mine foreman to properly perform his duty in safeguarding the lives
of the miners, it is the operator's duty to remedy such dangerous con-
dition; and a failure on his part to do so will give rise to liability which
he can not avoid by a pleading that the danger arose through the act
of the mine foreman, for whose negligence he is not responsible.
McCollom v. Pennsylvania Coal Co. (Pennsylvania), 95 Atlantic, 380, p. 381, May, 1915.
FAILURE OF OWNER TO PROVIDE ALARM FOR CARS-LIABILITY FOR
NEGLIGENCE OF FOREMAN.
Rule 44 of the act of 1891 of Pennsylvania requires an efficient
alarm to be provided and attached to the front end of every train of
cars operated by locomotive in any mine or part of a mine; and this
310110-Bull. 118-16----323
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This report can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Report.
Thompson, J. W. Abstracts of Current Decisions on Mines and Mining: October to December, 1915, report, 1916; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc12324/m1/33/: accessed April 23, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.