Bradley v. Northern Central Coal Co.
| Decision Date | 25 November 1912 |
| Citation | 151 S.W. 180,167 Mo.App. 177 |
| Parties | ODUS BRADLEY, Respondent, v. NORTHERN CENTRAL COAL COMPANY, Appellant |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Randolph Circuit Court.--Hon. A. H. Waller, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Judgment affirmed.
W. P Cave for appellant.
F. E Maxwell and M. J. Lilly for respondent.
--Plaintiff sued to recover damages for personal injuries he alleges were caused by negligence of defendant. He prevailed in the circuit court and the cause is here on the appeal of defendant. The facts of the case are as follows: At the time of the injury, March 20, 1912, defendant was operating a coal mine in Randolph county and plaintiff, an experienced miner was emplowed in the mine and was engaged in operating a coal mining machine. One of the links of a heavy wrought iron chain, called a feed chain and used in drawing the machine forward, broke while the machine was in operation and a broken end was thrown violently against plaintiff, who was standing near the place of the breaking, and the small bone of one of his legs was fractured.
The feed chain was sixty feet long and its links were an inch and a half long and made of round wrought iron rods five-eighths of an inch in diameter and when new its pulling strength was fourteen thousand pounds. The machine attached to the chain was an electrical cutting machine the main parts of which were a powerful motor, a system of sprocket and pulley wheels through and around which the feed chain passed and a cutter bar. The feed chain "threaded" through the machine by being coursed around the various pulleys and sprocket wheels, was firmly anchored at each end and the machine was moved forward by means of the motor revolving in the sprocket wheels, the teeth or sprockets of which engaged the links of the chain. In short, the machine traveled by pulling itself along the feed chain and the chain carried the machine as well as its load which consisted of the resistance offered to the work of the cutter bar. It was the office of the bar to undermine the ledge of coal by cutting out the underlying and supporting material and the ordinary working load carried by the feed chain when the machine was cutting through dirt or soapstone was about four thousand pounds. When the cutter encountered harder substances the load was increased and when it struck hard rock or sulphur it was necessary to remove the cutter as it could not work in such substances and the attempt to go on would result either in breaking the chain or some part of the machine. The operator could tell by the hum of the motor the character of the resistance opposed to the cutter and by moving a lever which controlled the power could stop the machine instantly. There was also a fuse which would blow out and shut off the current when the strain on the machine became too great and in addition to these safety and regulatory appliances there was a friction nut by which the attachment of the machine to the feed chain could be regulated on a scale varying from zero or no attachment to "positive" which firmly engaged the sprockets with the links of the chain in a manner to prevent any slipping. The friction nut was set periodically by the electrician employed by defendant and usually was kept at the point where the sprocket teeth would not engage the links when the total load exceeded seven thousand pounds. Plaintiff states that he was forbidden to change the position of the friction nut. Defendant denies this statement and contends that it was plaintiff's duty to use this appliance as one of the safety devices of the machine. For the purposes of the demurrer to the evidence which defendant insists should have been given, we shall accept the testimony of plaintiff on this subject, especially as it appears to be supported by a very plausible reason, viz.: the amount of plaintiff's wages depended on the quantity of coal taken out and it was found that the operators of machines, if allowed to manipulate the friction nut, were inclined to set it too high and thereby throw a greater burden on the machine than it could stand. In other words, to increase the output to the maximum, they would try to force the cutter through harder substances than the safety of the machine and chain would permit. Hence the rule forbidding operators from touching the friction nut. In addition to these devices for safety and economy the evidence of defendant shows that the builders of the machine provided for...
To continue reading
Request your trial