Abstracts of Current Decisions on Mines and Mining: May to August, 1917 Page: 33
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
STATUTES RELATING TO MINING OPERATIONS.
FOREMAN AS AGENT OR VICE PRINCIPAL.
A mine foreman, in addition to his statutory duties as prescribed
by the statute of West Virginia, had, by authority of the mining com-
pany, general charge of the mining operations and employed and
discharged miners. To the extent that he was required to perform
services outside of his statutory duties he was the agent of the com-
pany and rendered it liable for his negligence in giving an improper
order to a subordinate employee to throw a certain switch, thereby
causing a train of empty coal cars, hauled into the mine and discon-
nected from the motor while still in motion, to be diverted from the
main track or entry into a side entry, and that by reason thereof the
train collided with and injured a miner who was ignorant of the danger
and who, in obedience to previous directions of the mine foremen,
was pushing a loaded car from his place of work onto the siding.
Ward v. Liverpool Salt & Coal Co. (West Virginia), 92 Southeastern 92, p. 95.
EFFECT ON CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE.
'BURDEN OF PROOF.
The statute of Colorado known as the fellow-servant act (R. S.
1908, sec. 2605), makes an employer liable for injuries to an employee,
"being in the exercise of due care, from the employer's negligence or
that of another servant." The phrase "being in the exercise of due
care" was obviously inserted in the statute from motives of caution
that it might not be stated that the declared liability of the master
was intended to be absolute and without regard to any negligence of
the injured person contributing to the injury; but under this statute
the burden of proving contributory negligence rests upon the employer.
Rapson Coal Co. v. Micheli (Colorado), 164 Pacific 311, p. 313.
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE-PROXIMATE CAUSE.
To constitute contributory negligence there must be a want of
ordinary care on the part of the employee and a proximate connec-
tion between that and the injury complained of, but the proximate
cause of a result is not necessarily the sole cause, for there may be
concurring causes all of which are proximate; and when one of the
concurring causes of an injury is the negligence of the employee,
it is then spoken of as contributory negligence. In an action by
an injured miner for damages on the ground of the negligence of
the mine operator he may recover on proof of the negligence of the
operator proximately causing the injury, unless the evidence shows
that the injured miner was himself guilty of negligence which con-
curred with that of the defendant in producting the injury.
Otter Creek Coal Co. v. Archer (Indiana App.), 115 Northeastern 952, p. 953.
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/m1/47/: accessed August 22, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.