Brooks v. The Central Coal & Coke Company

• Decision Date: 06 November 1915
• Docket Number: 19,567
• Citation: 152 P. 616,96 Kan. 530
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court
• Parties: H. BROOKS, Appellant, v. THE CENTRAL COAL & COKE COMPANY, Appellee

152 P. 616

96 Kan. 530

H. BROOKS, Appellant, v. THE CENTRAL COAL & COKE COMPANY, Appellee

No. 19,567

Supreme Court of Kansas

November 6, 1915

Decided July, 1915.

Appeal from Cherokee district court; EDWARD E. SAPP, judge.

Judgment affirmed.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

1. PERSONAL INJURIES--Workman in Coal Mine--Failure to Inspect--No Actionable Negligence of Mine Operator. It is not negligence on the part of the operator of a coal mine to fail to inspect a room in a mine after shots have been fired, to discover defects in the roof and displaced props caused by the explosion of the shots.

2. SAME--"Reasonably Safe Place to Work." The rule that an employer must furnish his employee a reasonably safe place in which to work does not apply where the employee furnishes his own place, or where the place is continually changing by reason of the work itself.

R. J. W. Bloom, and C. A. McNeill, both of Columbus, for the appellant.

J. J. Campbell, of Pittsburg, and Al F. Williams, of Columbus, for the appellee; C. O. Pingry, of Pittsburg, of counsel.

OPINION

MARSHALL, J.

This action is brought to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff while working in a coal mine. A demurrer was sustained to the plaintiff's petition. He appeals.

We quote from the defendant's brief:

"The allegations of the negligence of the Coal Company are in substance that Brooks, the appellant, who was working in a room in Mine No. 42 of the Coal Company, the appellee, left his room securely propped and timbered and in a reasonably safe condition on the evening of May 19, 1913, and that by reason of the firing of the shots which Brooks had put in the face of the coal in his room, the props were knocked down, and that when Brooks resumed work in his room the next morning, while attempting to replace the first prop he found misplaced, the roof of the room fell and injured him; that the negligence of the Coal Company consisted in not inspecting Brooks' room after the shots were fired, and in not setting up the props which had been knocked down by reason of the explosion of the shots, and in not providing Brooks a reasonably safe place in which to work. The appellee at the time of the injury complained of was not within the provisions of the Workman's Compensation Act of Kansas."

It is argued that the petition does not charge any act of negligence, and it is contended that the operator of a coal mine, not operated under the workman's compensation act (Laws 1911, ch. 218), must be guilty of some act of negligence before he can be held liable for any injury to an employee.

1. We will discuss the acts of negligence charged in the order above set out. Was the defendant negligent in not inspecting the mine after the shots were fired? The plaintiff placed these shots. It was the defendant's duty to furnish a man to fire the shots. This the defendant did. The shots were fired. The roof was damaged and the props knocked down by the explosion of those shots. This was in the plaintiff's room, at the place where he was working. The plaintiff was the first man to enter the room after the shots were fired. It was his duty to inspect his room at the place at which he was working, for the purpose of discovering anything that might be dangerous. He could discover this as quickly, or more quickly, than any other person. He left his room with its props in proper and safe condition. When he returned he found them down. He should have then inspected the roof of his room to ascertain its condition. If he found it defective, he must have acted accordingly. While attempting to reset the props he was injured. We are of the opinion that it was not necessary for the defendant to inspect the plaintiff's room after the shots were fired, before he returned to his work.

...