Abstracts of Current Decisions on Mines and Mining: October to December, 1915 Page: 39
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:
MINES AND MINING OPERATIONS.
delegable duty and is fully performed when the mine owner or opera-
tor selects a suitable and competent fellow servant experienced in
the work, and makes it his duty to give the warning; and such com-
petent fellow workman does not stand in the relation of foreman or
shift boss to the mine operator, but is simply a fellow miner of the
timbermen, assisting him, and does not by reason of his seniority in
the work at the place represent the owner or operator so as to make
it liable for his negligence.
Aho v. Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co. (Michigan), 154 Northwestern, 52, p. 55, September, 1915.
VICE PIINCIPAL-WARNING MINER OF DANGER-LIABILITY OF
MASTER.
Where it was the duty of a mine operator to cross timber the
rooms of a mine and the operator selected a person to perform the
work and to do the work when the conditions required, it must be
presumed that such person possessed superior knowledge of the
danger, or lack of danger, growing out of the roof; and as the duty
of cross timbering devolved upon the operator, and as the duty was
intrusted to a person selected, he became a vice principal and took
the place of the operator, and his assurance of safety to a miner
was in effect an assurance by the master; but the rule operates both
ways, and if the miner had the right to rely on the assurance of safety
made by the vice principal, he should be required, on the other hand,
to heed the warning of danger where such vice principal warned the
miner of the dangerous condition of the roof and of the danger of
working thereunder a sufficient length of time before the accident to
enable the miner, by the exercise of ordinary care, to stop work and
avoid the peril, and the operator can not be held liable where the
miner continued in his working place as against such warning, and
was injured.
Carter Coal Co. v. Hill (Kentucky), 179 Southwestern, 2, p. 4, October, 1915.
ABANDONED ROOMS-FAILURE TO WARN MINER.
A mine owner and operator has the right to abandon places in his
mine which have been completed according to the plan of the work,
and if a room in which a miner was directed to work had been aban-
doned, there being no sufficient visible indications of its abandon-
ment, the mine owner would be liable for negligence to a miner enter-
ing such abandoned part or room and being injured in the course of his
employment, if the mine operator failed to give due and timely
warning of such abandoned part or room.
Osborn v. Darby Coat Mining Co. (Virginia), 86 Southeastern, 834, p. 835, November, 1915.
31011o-Bull. 118-16---439
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/m1/49/: accessed April 24, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.