Pantzar v. Tilly Foster Mining Co.
| Decision Date | 09 June 1885 |
| Citation | 2 N.E. 24,99 N.Y. 368 |
| Parties | PANTZAR v. TILLY FOSTER MINING CO. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Luther R. Marsh, for appellant, Tilly Foster Mining Co.
J. Edward Swanstrom, for respondent, Gustave Pantzar.
The general principles upon which this action depends have been so frequently discussed in recent cases that anything more than a brief summary would be unprofitable. Thus it has been held that a master owes the duty to his servant of furnishing adequate and suitable tools and implements for his use, a safe and proper place in which to prosecute his work, and, when they are needed, the employment of skillful and competent workmen to direct his labor and assist in the performance of his duties, ( Bartonshill Coal Co. v. Reid, 3 Macq. 275; Laning v. New York Cent. R. Co. 49 N. Y. 522;Bryden v. Stewart, 2 Macq. 34; Booth v. Boston & A. R. Co. 73 N. Y. 40;) that ‘no duty belonging to the master to perform for the safety and protection of his servants can be delegated to any servant of any grade so as to exonerate the master from responsibility to a co-servant who has been injured by its non-performance,’ (Mann v. President, etc., D. & H. C. Co. 91 N. Y. 500;Booth v. Soston & A. R. Co., supra;) and that when the general management and control of an industrial enterpriseor establishment is delegated to a superintendent, with power to hire and discharge servants, to direct their labors, and obtain and employ suitable means and appliances for the conduct of the business, such superintendent stands in the place of the master, and his neglect to adopt all reasonable means and precautions to provide for the safety of the employes constitutes an omission of duty on the part of the master rendering him liable for any injury occurring to the servant therefrom. Corcoran v. Holbrook, 59 N. Y. 517.
The case shows that the defendant was the owner of a coal mine in Putnam county, New York, conducted under the management of a superintendent. He was invested by them with full power of control over the same, and ample discretion and authority in directing the work, and using all suitable measures and precautions for carrying on the business of mining, and securing the safety of the workmen employed in the prosecution of the enterprise.
The action under review was brought by a servant of the defendant to recover damages for personal injuries received by him through the fall of a mass of rock, while working in a pit in which the mining operations in question were carred on. The plaintiff at the time of the accident, was upon a wall in the course of construction for the purpose of furnishing a place behind which to deposit the refuse material of the mine, and, as claimed by defendant, also with a view of supporting the overhanging cliff from which the rock injuring plaintiff fell. At the time of the accident this wall had been raised to the height of about 60 feet, and was still some 50 feet below the surface of the ground. While thus engaged with a number of other workmen a large mass was detached, and fell from the brow of the projecting cliff under which the work was in progress, and caused the death of some and the serious injury of others, among whom was the plaintiff.
The evidence as to the condition of the rock at the time of the accident was conflicting, and raised questions of fact peculiarly within the province of the jury to determine. On the part of the defendant it tended to show that the cliff was composed of gneiss, a mineral naturally marked by seams, points, and joints, and fliations, and that it was in the frequent and continued habit of causing it to be examined for the purpose of discovering, if possible, appearances indicating any immediate danger, and that no such indications had been observed before the accident.
On the other hand, the plaintiff's evidence showed that a large crack parallel with, and about 10 feet back from, the upper angle of the face of the cliff had long existed and was plainly visible; that the attention of the superintendent and foreman had been called to it, and they were warned of its dangerous character; that they had instituted an experiment to determine whether it was growing or not, and that such experiment did show that it was increasing in width, and still took no precautions to support the rock while the workmen were engaged under it, although such precautions were practicable, and frequently adopted in other mines. In some cases braces, of timbers, extending across from one side of the pit to the rock liable to fall, were used, and in others the overhanging rock had been blasted off. It was also shown that a wall such as that in process of construction would, when completed, have furnished a support to the projecting mass. The plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson v. Pittsburg Coal Co.
...655 (failure to warn lineman of turning on electric power); Postal & C. Co. v. Likes, 225 Ill. 249, 80 N. E. 136;Pantzar v. Tilly Mining Co., 99 N. Y. 368, 2 N. E. 24-27 (failure of master to warn servant at work in mine of danger from rock liable to fall); C. F. R. R. v. Crockett, 19 Neb. ......
-
Cincinnati, N.O. & T.P. Ry. Co. v. Hall
... ... 368, ... 386, 13 Sup.Ct. 914, 37 L.Ed. 772 ... [16] Pantzar v. Iron Min. Co., 99 N.Y. 368, ... 376, 2 N.E. 24 ... [17] McCalman v ... v. Jackson, 65 F. 48, 12 ... C.C.A. 507; Finlayson v. Mining Co., 67 F. 507; Railway Co ... v. Brown, 73 F. 971, 20 C.C.A. 147; Hauss ... ...
-
Mount v. Western Coal & Mining Co.
... ... measures of precaution by the master which the servant ... assumes." [Pantzar v. Mining Co., 99 N.Y. 368, ... 2 N.E. 24; Watson v. Coal Co., 52 Mo.App. 366; ... Superior Coal ... ...
-
Lawrence v. City of New York
...180 id. 373 .)" At first blush it appears that there has been at least one departure from the New York rule. In Pantzar v. Tilly Foster Iron Mining Co., 99 N.Y. 368, 2 N.E. 24, the Court of Appeals actually permitted recovery when a mass of rock collapsed onto plaintiff because of a defect ......