Chandler Coal Co. v. Sams
| Citation | 170 Ind. 623,85 N.E. 341 |
| Decision Date | 24 June 1908 |
| Docket Number | No. 21,043.,21,043. |
| Parties | CHANDLER COAL CO. v. SAMS. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Vanderburgh County; L. A. Rasch, Judge.
Action for personal injuries by William B. Sams against the Chandler Coal Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
D. H. Artmeyer and G. A. Cunningham, for appellant. Thos. W. Lindsay, for appellee.
This appeal has been transferred from the Appellate Court on account of a constitutional question raised by appellant. The action was commenced by appellee in the trial court, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained on November 29, 1905, while he was at work as a miner in a coal mine operated by appellant company. The suit is based on section 27 of an act of the Legislature entitled Acts 1905, p. 65, c. 50 (4 Burns' Ann. St. Supp. 1905, c. 94). Section 27 of this statute gives a right of action, against the operator of a coal mine, to a person for personal injury occasioned by any violation of the act or any willful failure to comply with its provisions. The complaint alleges that the defendant is a corporation, duly organized and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Indiana, and was such a corporation during the month of November, 1905, at the time plaintiff received the injuries “hereinafter described”; that the defendant is now, and was during the month of November, 1905, the owner and operator of a coal mine, situate in the county of Warrick, state of Indiana, at or near the town of Chandler, and operated said mine by digging and hoisting the coal therefrom; that at the time plaintiff received the injuries hereinafter described, it employed more than 10 men in said mine, etc.; that the mine is not lighted by electricity. The negligence imputed to the defendant, and to which appellee's injury is attributed, is that it failed to maintain and keep two lamps lighted at all times when the mine was in operation, one on each side of the shaft, not more than 10 feet from said shaft, in each vein where men got on and off the cages, and to keep them lighted, as required by the statute; that it did not maintain any lamps at all at or near the cages in said mine, and had no light whatever at the bottom of the shaft where the men employed got on and off the cages. Section 7 of the statute in controversy provides that A demurrer to the complaint was overruled. The answer was a general denial. Trial by jury, verdict in favor of appellee, awarding him $1,000 as damages. A motion for new trial, assigning the statutory grounds, as well as the giving and refusing to give certain instructions, was denied. Judgment was rendered upon the verdict. The errors discussed and relied upon for a reversal are, first, overruling the demurrer to the complaint; second, in giving and refusing certain instructions; third, that by the evidence it appears that appellee was guilty of contributory negligence.
Counsel for appellant contend that sections 7 and 20 of the act in question are unconstitutional and invalid for the following reasons: First, they deny to certain persons the equal protection of the law; second, they grant to certain citizens, or class of citizens, privileges and immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens; and, third, they are not general and uniform in their operation upon all citizens in similar circumstances. It is insisted that each of these sections violates the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and also the provisions of the following sections of the state's Constitution: Section 23 of the Bill of Rights and section 23 of article 4. The contention is that the phrase in section 7, supra, “except when electric lights are used,” renders it invalid. The argument is advanced that this exception is not based upon any reasonable or just classification, and consequently is an unwarranted discrimination against coal mines in which no electric lights are used. It is asserted that there is no requirement that in any mine in which electric lights are used the two lights mentioned must be kept burning at the bottom of the shaft. Counsel for appellant concede that the danger which the Legislature had in view, and intended to prevent by requiring that two lamps should be maintained at the points designated, was that which might be due to the darkness of the mine at such places. The Legislature appears to have considered, however, that if the mine was already sufficiently lighted by electric lights so that the darkness was dispelled at the places in the shaft where the miners got on and off the cages, it would not be necessary, under the circumstances, in addition to the electric lights, to keep two other lamps burning during the time when the electric lights are used. Or, in other words, the two lamps are required to be kept lighted “at all times” when the mine is in operation, except when the electric lights therein used afford sufficient light, at the points or places designated, to enable the miners, with reasonable safety, to enter the cages and alight therefrom. While section 7 does not expressly require that the mine shaft be lighted with electric lights, nevertheless it proceeds upon the assumption that the mine is equipped with such lights, and, if so, when they are in use, if they afford light sufficient at the points where the miners enter or alight from the cages, the operator, under the circumstances, will not be required to light the two lamps, as provided by the statute. It was not the intention of the lawmakers that the mine operator should do a useless thing. The exception in the section in question is manifestly just and legitimate. It merely relieves the mine operator of the burden of keeping the two lamps lighted at such times when the electric lights which are used in the mine afford sufficient light for the purpose intended.
Counsel for appellant argue that the exception in section 20 of the statute, which provides that “the provisions of this law shall apply to all...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carr v. State
... ... 366, 18 S.Ct. 383, 42 L.Ed. 780." ... The ... case of Chandler Coal Co. v. Sams (1908), ... 170 Ind. 623, 85 N.E. 341, settled affirmatively the validity ... ...
-
Carr v. State
...must be respected by the courts. Holden v. Hardy, 169 U. S. 366, 18 Sup. Ct. 383, 42 L. Ed. 780.” The late case of Chandler Coal Co. v. Sams (1908) 170 Ind. 623, 85 N. E. 341, settled affirmatively the validity of an act of this state for the protection of miners which was general in its sc......
-
Strange v. Bd. of Com'rs of Grant Cnty.
...E. 80, 41 L. R. A. 337, 344. As to working in mines, we have recognized it as properly based upon the number employed. Chandler Co. v. Sames, 170 Ind. 623, 85 N. E. 341. The classification must not be arbitrary or whimsical; it must be based upon reasons which naturally inhere in the subjec......
-
Vandalia Railroad Co. v. Stillwell
... ... Co. v. Holden (1913), ... 180 Ind. 301, 102 N.E. 21; Peabody-Alwert Coal Co ... v. Yandell (1913), 179 Ind. 222, 100 N.E. 758; ... Evansville Gas, etc., Co. v ... 689; American Car, ... etc., Co. v. Adams (1912), 178 Ind. 607, 99 ... N.E. 993; Chandler Coal Co. v. Sams (1908), ... 170 Ind. 623, 85 N.E. 341. The defense of the hazards and ... ...