Abstracts of Current Decisions on Mines and Mining: May to August, 1917 Page: 34
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
DECISIONS ON MINES AND MINING.
FAILURE TO USE PROPS.
Where props of the required length and otherwise suitable for use
are furnished by a mine operator either upon the request of a miner
or without request and upon knowledge that they would be needed
and deposited in a convenient and proper place for use by a miner, a
failure on the miner's part to set the props and make the roof of his
working place safe, resulting in an injury to him, caused by a fall of
the roof, must be attributed to his own negligence in failing to set the
props as required by the statute, and the mine operator can not be
charged with negligence and made liable for an injury to the miner
because he failed to supply the props.
Carter Coal Co. v. Reynolds (Kentucky), 194 Southwestern 311, p. 312.
FAILURE OF MINER TO TEST ROOF.
A miner whose duty it is to inspect and test the roof of his working
place and where, after a blast, he examined the slate above where the
coal was blasted and found some of it loose, which he took down but
did not test the remaining part except by tapping it with his knuckle,
but failed to test it with a pick or other solid substance, is guilty of
such contributory negligence as will prevent a recovery for injuries
caused by a fall of the slate of which he made such insufficient test.
Carter Coal Co. v. Reynolds (Kentucky), 194 Southwestern 311, p. 313.
APPORTIONMENT OF DAMAGES.
The constitution of Arizona (sec. 7, art. 18) commands the legis-
lature to enact an employer's liability act making an employer liable
for the death or injury of workmen employed in certain named hazard-
ous occupations. It also provides that liability is incurred in all
cases in which the injury or death of an employee shall not have been
caused by the contributory negligence of the employee himself. The
employer's liability act of 1913 (Arizona Civil Code, 1913) is not in
violation of this constitutional provision because it permits or author-
izes an apportionment of the damages where the employee himself
was guilty of contributory negligence, but where the injury or death
resulted from an accident arising out of and in the course of employ-
ment in a hazardous occupation and was due to conditions of the
occupation or employment.
Superior & Pittsburgh Copper Co. v. Tomaich (Arizona), 165 Pacific ]1101, p. 1103
DEFENSE UNDER EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY ACT.
In an action by a miner under the Arizona employer's liability
act for damages for injuries received in the course of the hazardous
employment, an answer by the defendant, the mine operator, to the
effect that the injury resulted because of the contributory negligence
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/m1/48/: accessed September 22, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.