Abstracts of Current Decisions on Mines and Mining: October to December, 1915 Page: 50
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:
MINING DECISIONS.
that the machine had stopped two or three times and its defective con-
dition was known to him and with such knowledge he continued
to work with the machine, as it is not sufficient to show merely that
the miner knew of the defective condition or that it was clearly ob-
servable, but it must be made to appear that the danger from such
condition was known or clearly observable and appreciated by him.
The fact that he knew that the machine had stopped on two or three
occasions on the morning of the injury is immaterial where it does not
appear that when the machine was started it began to move with
such violence that the danger therefrom was clearly observable and
the miner was justified in continuing the use of the machine where
the electrician, who repaired it, assured the miner that it was all right,
and he had the right to rely on the assurance thus given and to continue
to use the machine unless the danger was so obvious that an ordi-
narily prudent person would have refused to continue working with it.
Stearns & Lumber Co. v. Calhoun (Kentucky), 179 Southwestern, 590, p. 591, November, 1915.
GROSS NEGLIGENCE OF SUPERIOR SERVANT.
Under the Kentucky rule injuries which are caused to a miner or an
inferior employee by the gross negligence of his superior employee
are imputed to the employer or mine operator, and such an employee
does not assume the risks of danger which arise from such gross neg-
ligence in an employee superior in authority to himself; but this rule
is limited to cases where such superior employee has the immediate
control of and supervision of the injured employee, and does not
extend to cases where the superior employee's ordinary negligence
causes injury to an inferior employee who is not immediately under
his control and supervision.
Nebo Coal Co. v. Barnett (Kentucky), 180 Southwestern, 79, p. 81, December, 1915.
VIOLENT AND UNUSUAL JERKS OF MOTOR.
An injury received by an employee from an ordinary and necessary
jerk in the operation of a motor and coal cars in a mine is the result
of a risk assumed by the employee, but an injury from a violent and
unusual and unnecessary jerk does not arise from such assumed risk,
and proof of a jerk by a motor operating upon the coal cars which
is violent, unusual, and unnecessary may be evidence of negligence
on the part of the person operating the motor; and where a jolt
received by a coal car, thereby causing the injury complained of, was
unusual, violent, and unnecessary, a miner suing for an injury result-
ing therefrom is entitled to have his contention upon this subject
submitted to and determined by a jury.
Nebo Coal Co. v. Barnett (Kentucky), 180 Southwestern, 79, p. 80, December, 1915.50
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/m1/60/: accessed April 24, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.