Abstracts of Current Decisions on Mines and Mining: May to August, 1917 Page: 52
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
DECISIONS ON MINES AND MINING.
employment knowing the danger and with ample opportunity to
guard against it.
Wiggins v. Standard Oil Co., 141 Louisiana -, 75 Southern 232, p. 233.
LEAVING LUMPS OF COAL BESIDE THE TRACK.
A brakeman or snapper while riding on the brake rod of a motor
was injured by reason of one foot coming in contact with a large lump
of coal that lay near the track and his foot was thereby knocked
against and under the wheels. The mine operator can not be charged
with negligence and held liable for the injury to the brakeman because
lumps of coal were left near the track where the brakeman had equal
opportunity of observing the lumps of coal and did know and had
known for weeks previous that the lumps of coal were there and knew
of the probability of his foot striking the lumps of coal while so stand-
ing on the brake rod.
Vilsock v. Youghiogheny & Ohio Coal Co. (Pennsylvania), 100 Atlantic 530, p. 532.
MINERS RIDING ON CARS-LIABILITY FOR INJURY.
A rule of a coal-mine operator to the effect that all persons who ride
upon any incline or upon any car, engine, or motor do so at their own
risk will not absolve the operator from liability for damages to a
miner injured while riding on a car on the ground of negligence
where there was little effort made to enforce the rule and especially
against the night shift, and where the injured miner, working on the
night shift, had been directed by the foreman to catch the trip at the
tipple and ride into the mine, and where it was a custom for all the
workmen to ride, and where the custom of riding the trip was known,
or should have been known, to the mine operator if he had been reason-
ably observant. His failure to enforce the rule proves his acquies-
cence in its violation. Under such circumstances the mine operator
was negligent in failing to maintain the cars and track in a reason-
ably safe condition for the purpose for which they were used.
Simpson v. Carter Coal Co. (West Virginia), 91 Southeastern 1085, p. 1086.
EFFECT OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT.
It was not the purpose of the Legislature of West Virginia in passing
the workmen's compensation act to relieve an employer from lia-
bility for a negligent act causing injury to one of his employees or
a miner who happens not at the particular moment to be engaged
in performing labor for him; but where an injury is the result of a
negligent act of an employer, a mine operator, the injured miner
has a right of action against the operator as at common law.
Cox v. United States Coal & Coke Co. (West Virginia), 92 Southeastern 559, p. 561.
Here’s what’s next.
This report can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
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/m1/66/: accessed February 21, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.