Abstracts of Current Decisions on Mines and Mining: May to August, 1917 Page: 49
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
MINES AND MINING OPERATIONS.
hole so that the men could reach and unscrew the joints. The
injured helper was using a 12-pound sledge hammer, striking the
sleeve or collar in order to loosen the threads. While so engaged
his foot slipped off the muddy plank on which he was standing and
he fell into the machinery, breaking, mangling, and crushing his leg
so as to require amputation. The proof was insufficient to show
negligence on the part of the employer because of the use of the 12-
pound hammer that increased the danger of slipping on the wet plank
of the derrick floor. So the proof of negligence was insufficient on
the ground that the plank on which the helper was instructed to
stand was wet, muddy, and slippery and the hole in the derrick floor
was left unguarded, where it appears that the injured helper was a
workman of two years' experience and was as capable of observing
and guarding against the dangers of the employment as any man of
superior authority and where there was no hidden danger in the
employment or need of special instructions as to the safe and proper
manner of doing the work.
Wiggins v. Standard Oil Co., 141 Louisiana -, 75 Southern 232, p. 233.
PROOF MUST SHOW CAUSAL CONNECTION.
In an action for damages by a miner for injures sustained in the
course of the employment, the proof must sufficiently show that the
operator's negligence was the cause of the injury and the causal con-
nection between the negligence and the injury must be established.
Church v. Central Coal & Coke Co. (Missouri App.), 195 Southwestern 573, p. 574.
FAILURE TO INSPECT.
The timbers in an entry 8 feet wide had been blown out by some
shots fired in the course of mining operations, and the roof of the
entry was permitted to remain unsupported for a period of four days
to a week. Lime seams in the roof of an entry disintegrate more
rapidly than in rooms because of the circulation of the air currents
through the entry. A sure evidence of a settling roof is a cut at the
angle between the roof and rib, and in the entry in controversy and
where the injury complained of happened this cutting was mani-
fested a day or two prior to the accident. This was observed by
timbermen in their inspection, but their warning as to the condition
was ignored. Under these circumstances the question as to the lia-
bility of the coal company for injuries to a common laborer while
working in the entry, caused by a fall of rock from the roof, on the
ground of insufficient inspection, is one of fact to be determined by
the jury on the trial of the case.
Ahlson v. High Bridge Coal Co. (Iowa), 163 Northwestern 219, p. 220.
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/m1/63/: accessed September 21, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.