Abstracts of Current Decisions on Mines and Mining: May to August, 1917 Page: 29
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
STATUTES RELATING TO MINING OPERATIONS.
States. Neither is it in conflict with section 5 of article 18 of the
State constitution providing that the defense of contributory negli-
gence or assumption of risk shall be questions of fact to be deter-
mined by a jury. This section of the State constitution does not
restrict the power of the legislature to modify or abolish the defense
of contributory negligence. The constitutional provision merely
requires the submission to a court or jury of the question of con-
tributory negligence in cases where such defenses are allowed.
Superior & Pittsburgh Copper Co. v. Tomaich (Arizona), 165 Pacific 1101, p. 1103.
VALIDITY OF REGULATIONS-POLICE POWERS.
The statute of Arizona (par. 3147, Civil Code, 1913) declares that
employment in all underground mines, workings, open cut or open
pit workings, or about or in connection with the operation of smelters,
reduction works, stamp mills, concentrating mills, chlorination
processes, cyanide processes, coke ovens and blast furnaces, is declared
to be injurious to health and dangerous to life and limb. Thus the
statute declares the occupations enumerated in this and other sec-
tions as inherently hazardous and dangerous to workmen engaged
therein, and makes the obvious declaration that the risks and hazards
incident to such occupations are unavoidable by the workmen
engaged therein. The occupations designated as hazardous and
dangerous and inherently unsafe are deemed for that purpose injurious
to the health and dangerous to life and limb of the workmen engaged
therein and fall within the police powers of the State for regulation
and control. For the protection of workmen in such: occupations
the law casts upon the employer the duty to promulgate rules and
regulations and instructions by which all such employees are in-
formed as to their duties and restrictions of their employment.
The safety of men engaged in the hazardous occupations named is
the dominant idea running through the statute, and all laws which
reasofiably regulate such employments are regulations within the
police powers of the state.
Inspiration Consolidated Copper Co. v. Mendez (Arizona), 166 Pacific 278, p. 282.
DUTIES IMPOSED ON OPERATOR.
PRESUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE.
Under the statute of Iowa a coal-mine operator is presumed to be
negligent where a laborer working in an entry entirely apart from
his working place was injured by a fall of rock'from the roof.
Ahlson v. High Bridge Coal Co. (Iowa), 163 Northwestern 219, p. 221.
Here’s what’s next.
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, Joseph Wesley. Abstracts of Current Decisions on Mines and Mining: May to August, 1917, report, December 1917; Washington D.C.. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc38745/m1/43/: accessed October 21, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.