Abstracts of Current Decisions on Mines and Mining: May to August, 1917 Page: 56
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
DECISIONS ON MINES AND MINING.
in a reasonably safe condition considering the purpose for which
such appliances were designed and constructed; but it would not be
reasonable and it is not expected to keep them in as safe a condition
as cars built for passenger traffic.
Simpson v. Carter Coal Co. (West Virginia), 91 Southeastern 1085, p. 1086.
RULE AS TO SIMPLE APPLIANCES.
The rule that an employer must furnish his employees with safe
tools with which to do their work has little or no application to such
a simple tool as a sledge hammer, having no other defect than that
it was heavier than necessary for the work to be done with it.
Wiggins v. Standard Oil Co., 141 Louisiana --. 75 Southern 232, p. 233.
OPERATOR'S PROMISE TO REPAIR.
DANGERS OBVIOUS-RIGHT TO RELY ON PROMISE.
A brakeman on coal cars hauling coal in and out of a mine was
required to operate the brakes, couple and uncouple the cars, and
throw the switch in taking the motor and cars in and out of the
mine. Most of his duties were to be performed on the ground and
he was supposed to walk the short distance from the place of cou-
pling and uncoupling the cars to the switch at the pit's mouth.
Instead of walking this distance or riding in a safe place on the rear
of the motor, he was in the habit of jumping on the moving motor
and standing with one foot on the brake rod near the ground while
going from the place of coupling and uncoupling the cars to the
switch. He knew of the presence of large blocks of coal near the side
of the track and complained to the foreman of the presence of the
coal and the foreman promised to remove them. While so riding
and before the coal had been removed, the brakeman was injured
by one foot striking a lump of coal and being driven against and
under the wheels. The failure of the foreman to remove the lumps
of coal as promised can not be held sufficient to charge the mine
operator with negligence and to hold him liable to the brakeman
for damages for the injury, where the brakeman was not performing
his duties in the manner in which they could have reasonably been
performed and where there is nothing to show that it was necessary
for the brakeman in the proper performance of his duty to ride on
the rod of the moving motor and where he easily could have walked
the distance as the snapper often did and reach the switch ahead of
the motor. Under such circumstances the injured employee can not
set up the alleged promise to remove the coal as an excuse for con-
tinuing the dangerous practice of riding on the motor.
Vilsock v. Youghiogheny & Ohio Coal Co. (Pennsylvania), 100 Atlantic 530, p.
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/m1/70/: accessed November 18, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.