Abstracts of Current Decisions on Mines and Mining: May to August, 1917 Page: 68
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
DECISIONS ON MINES AND MINING.
maintain under the circumstances. Extraordinary risks are not
assumed, because they are not the natural and ordinary incidents of
the work of an employee.
Leyba v. Albuquerque Cerrillos Coal Co. (New Mexico), 164 Pacific 823, p..825.
WANT OF KNOWLEDGE OF DANGER.
An employee in connection with the operation of a coal mine and
whose duties were that of an outside foreman, injured by a large
lump of coal falling from the'shaker and striking him on the head,
can not be held to have assumed the risk of coal so falling while
attempting at the direction of the operator to turn on steam to start
the shakers, and while performing the duty and without his knowl-
edge the operator started another stationary engine that operated the
shaker, thereby causing a piece of coal to fall down upon the plaintiff.
Dimmick v. Utah Fuel Co. (Utah), 164 Pacific 872, p. 876
A person employed in a mine for the handling, running and dump-
ing and operating of the tram cars along the tramway of the employ-
er's mine and dumping place, and whose duty it was to pass or run
along the runway adjacent to and about 4 feet lower than the
track of the tramway and to insert sprags between the spokes of the
wheels in order to retard the motion of the car, does not assume the
risk of the dangerous condition of the runway, as the employee in the
discharge of the duty of spragging the wheel was required to run
alongside the car with one hand upon the car and with his eyes upon
the wheel in order to insert the sprag between the spokes to slow down
the speed, all of which clearly and imperatively required that the
operator should use reasonable care in preserving the runway in a
Leyba v. Albuquerque Cerrillos Coal Co. (New Mexico), 164 Pacific 823, p. 825.
LAW OF FOREIGN STATE.
In an action by a miner in the State of Missouri for injuries sus-
tained while working in a coal mine in the State of Kansas, it is
proper to exclude evidence tending to show the assumption of the
risk on the part of the miner, where, under the laws of the State of
Kansas, the assumption of risk can not be shown as a defense in an
action for damages for injuries received in the course of the employ-
Church v. Central Coal & Coke Co. (Missouri App.), 195 Southwestern 573, p. 574.
PROXIMATE CAUSE OF INJURY.
DEFECTIVE APPLIANCES-PROXIMATE CAUSE.
In an action for damages by a miner injured by a collision of the
car on which he was riding with a derailed car, caused by his car
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/m1/82/: accessed October 21, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.