Abstracts of Current Decisions on Mines and Mining: May to August, 1917 Page: 63
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
MINES AND MINING OPERATIONS.
cable with the operating machine, on the ground that he failed or
neglected to disconnect the reel cable from the main cable; but where
it was made to appear that it was the custom to load the machine
on the truck without disconnecting the reel cable and where it was
also shown that the insulation on the cable had become worn and
defective and the live wire exposed, and where the mine operator,
through the mine foreman, had knowledge of the defective condition
of the reel cable and the deceased hostler or assistant did not know
of such defects.
Kitchen v. Hillside Coal Co. (Kentucky), 194 Southwestern 791, p. 793.
SHOTS -FIRED BY MINER-FAILURE TO INSPECT.
An experienced miner employed to widen an entry fired two
shots to blow down the coal from the rib near the roof of the entry
is guilty of such contributory negligence as will prevent a recovery,
where shortly after he returned to the place where the shots had
been fired and remained under the roof without making any inspec-
tion or test to ascertain the condition of the roof at the place where
the shots had been fired.
Stearns Coal & Lumber Co. v. Spradling (Kentucky), 195 Southwestern 781, p. 783.
INJURY IN ENTRY-FAILURE TO SEEK REFUGE HOLE.
In an action by a miner for injuries sustained by being run over
by a mine car while he was passing through an entry, the proof
showed that at the time of the injury the miner was passing through
an entry alongside of the mine track and that the entry was equipped
with manholes or places of refuge at intervals not exceeding 60
feet, and that at the place where the miner was struck he heard the
noise and roar made by the moving motor and cars for a distance
of 500 feet, and that he saw the headlights of the approaching motor
at a distance of 140 feet from the place of the accident, and that he
had ample time to reach and take refuge in one of the manholes
until the passing of the motor and the cars. Under such circum-
stances the question of the miner's contributory negligence in failing
to take refuge in one of the manholes is one of fact to be submitted
for the determination of the jury on the trial of the case.
Strawn Coal Co. v. Trojan (Texas App.), 195 Southwestern 256, p. 258.
METHOD OF OPERATING CUTTING MACHINE-USE OF SUMPING BAR.
The operator of an electric coal-cutting machine, injured by the
sumping bar being kicked or knocked against his foot, is not to be
charged with such contributory negligence as will defeat his recovery
because he left the bar in the position in which it was customary to
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/m1/77/: accessed June 27, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.