Abstracts of Current Decisions on Mines and Mining: May to August, 1917 Page: 60
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
DECISIONS ON MINES AND MINING.
DUTY OF MINER TO OBSERVE DANGEROUS CONDITIONS.
The rule that a miner must examine and make safe his working
place applies where an experienced miner was employed to widen an
entry so that an additional track could be laid. In such case it is
the duty of the miner to examine the roof of the entry at the place
where he had blasted down the coal to see that the roof was safe
before beginning work under it.
Stearns Coal & Lumber Co. v. Spradling (Kentucky), 195 Southwestern 781, p. 783.
DUTY TO WARN OR INSTRUCT.
FAILURE TO WARN EXPERIENCED MINER.
No duty is imposed upon a mine operator to warn an experienced
miner where he is engaged in taking down the roof of an entry and
where he knew or must have known all that the operator could have
told him by the warning, and especially where he was warned of the
danger and instructed as to the method of proceeding by other
miners assisting in the work. Where a miner is as fully aware of
dangers and how to avoid them as he could be had he been warned
and instructed by the operator, there can be no negligence in failing
to instruct as to that which the miner already knew.
Holmes v. Bloomfield Coal & Mining Co. (Iowa), 162 Northwestern 820, p. 824.
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE OF MINER.
KNOWLEDGE OF DANGER THAT PREVENTS RECOVERY.
The operator of an electric coal-cutting machine was injured by
the sumping bar being thrown violently against his foot and ankle
due to certain alleged defects in the manner of controlling or the
putting on or taking off the power. The question as to whether or
not the operator had knowledge that it was dangerous to place the
sumping bar in such position, if it was dangerous, was one of fact to
be determined by the jury and it was for the jury to say whether in
view of his past experience in so placing the bar and in view of the
physical facts themselves as to the manner of placing and the weight
of the bar, the operator had reason to believe it was an improper thing
to do; and under such circumstances the question of the operator's
contributory negligence in so placing the bar was also for the jury to
determine. But there is a vital difference between knowledge of
the extent and character of a danger and knowledge of a defect which
a danger lurks in, the extent or imminence of which was not dis-
coverable to the operator by the reasonable use of the opportunity
his situation afforded. The fact that the operator's work with the
coal-cutting machine was to some extent dangerous, and was known
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/m1/74/: accessed September 24, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.