Durrant v. Lexington Coal Min. Co.

Citation97 Mo. 62,10 S.W. 484
PartiesDURRANT v. LEXINGTON COAL MIN. CO.
Decision Date04 February 1889
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri

Appeal from circuit court, Lafayette county; JOHN P. STROTHER, Judge.

Action by Charles P. Durrant against the Lexington Coal Mining Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Wallace & Chiles, for appellant. Graves & Aull, for respondent.

BLACK, J.

This is an action for personal damages sustained by the plaintiff while in the employ of the defendant, a corporation engaged in mining coal. The action is founded upon the act of March 23, 1881, (Acts 1881, p. 165.) The act, among other things, provides: "The owner, agent or operator of every coal mine operated by shaft, shall provide suitable means of signaling between the bottom and the top thereof; and shall also provide safe means of hoisting and lowering persons in a cage covered with boiler-iron, so as to keep safe, as far as possible, persons descending into and ascending out of said shaft." "The top of each and every shaft, and the entrance to each and every intermediate working vein, shall be securely fenced by gates properly covering and protecting such shaft and entrance thereto." Section 14 enacts: "For any injury to persons or property, occasioned by any willful violation of this act, or willful failure to comply with any of its provisions, a right of action shall accrue to the party injured for any direct damages sustained thereby."

The evidence shows, without any dispute, that defendant failed to cover its cages with iron or other material; that the top of the shaft had no gates or other protection; and the only means of communicating from the top to the bottom of the shaft was by the human voice. It is in these respects that the petition charges a willful failure to comply with the statute, and upon these issues the case went to the jury.

The evidence also shows that plaintiff was employed as cager at the bottom of the shaft; his duty being to put the pit cars on the cage, so that they could be hoisted to the surface. As one cage, with its loaded car, would go up, another one, with an empty car, would come down. The plaintiff was endeavoring to get a loaded car on the down cage, and, the car being off its track, he stepped into the cage to pull it on. While he was doing this a large lump of coal fell from the car which had reached the top of the shaft, and broke and fractured the bones of one leg. Had the cage been covered, it is quite clear that he would not have been injured.

Since the plaintiff was not going up or down the shaft, and did not go into the lower cage for that purpose, the defendant insists that, as to him, there was no violation of that clause of the statute which makes it the duty of defendant to "provide safe means of hoisting and lowering persons in a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
50 cases
  • State v. Cantwell
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 1, 1904
    ......179; Godcharles v. Wigeman, . 113 Pa. St. 431; State v. F. C. Coal & Coke Co., 33. W.Va. 188; Ritchie v. People, 155 Ill. 98; Cooley. ... court on this subject in the case of Durant v. Lexington. Coal Mining Co., 97 Mo. l. c. 62, 10 S.W. 484. In. discussing an act ......
  • Brannock v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • March 8, 1910
    ...employer has not safeguarded as required by statute, even though the employee is aware of their condition. [Cases supra; Durant v. Mining Co., 97 Mo. 62, 10 S.W. 484; Bair v. Heibel, 103 Mo.App. 621, 77 S.W. Nairn v. Biscuit Co., 120 Mo.App. 144, 96 S.W. 679; McGinnis v. Printing Co., 122 M......
  • Hall v. West & Slade Mill Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • August 2, 1905
    ......Michigan Starch Co. (Mich.) 100 N.W. 447; Davis Coal Co. v. Polland, 158 Ind. 607, 62. N.E. 492, 92 Am. St. Rep. 319; ... Young, 143 Ill. 74, 32 N.E. 447; Durant v. Lexington. Coal Mining Co., 97 Mo. 62, 10 S.W. 484; Landgraf v. Kuh, ......
  • Consolidated School District v. Power Company, 29329.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 11, 1932
    ...6 S.W. (2d) 979; Harrison v. Electric Light Co., 195 Mo. 606; Knox v. Hunt, 18 Mo. 174; Hahn's Admr. v. Sweazea, 29 Mo. 199; Durrant v. Coal Mining Co., 97 Mo. 62; O'Mellia v. Ry. Co., 115 Mo. 205; Gray v. Shelton, 282 S.W. 53; Newman v. City of Marceline, 6 S.W. (2d) 659. (6) The verdict w......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT