Collins Coal Co. v. Hadley
| Decision Date | 25 October 1905 |
| Docket Number | 5,466 |
| Citation | 75 N.E. 832,38 Ind.App. 637 |
| Parties | COLLINS COAL COMPANY v. HADLEY, ADMINISTRATRIX |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Rehearing denied June 29, 1906, Reported at: 38 Ind.App. 637 at 645. Transfer denied October 12, 1906.
From Clay Circuit Court; Presley O. Colliver, Judge.
Action by Louise Hadley, as administratrix of the estate of Goldie Hadley, deceased, against the Collins Coal Company. From a judgment on a verdict for plaintiff for $ 5,000, defendant appeals.
Reversed.
Rawley & Hutchison and Henry, Crane & Miller, for appellant.
A. W Knight, George A. Knight and Jacob Herr, for appellee.
Appellee brought this action to recover damages resulting from the death of the decedent caused by the alleged negligent acts of appellant. The complaint is in a single paragraph, to which a demurrer for want of facts was overruled. Answer in general denial. Trial by jury, resulting in a general verdict for appellee. Appellant's motion for a new trial overruled, and judgment upon the verdict.
By the assignment of errors, appellant is entitled to have considered the action of the court in overruling the demurrer to the complaint and its motion for a new trial.
The complaint alleges that the appellee was the duly appointed, qualified and acting administratrix of the estate of the decedent; that appellant was a corporation existing under the laws of Indiana, and engaged in mining and shipping coal; that appellant was the owner of a certain coal mine in Clay county, Indiana, and was engaged in working and operating the same; that the coal was reached and worked by means of a shaft sunk from the surface of the earth, and by driving entries through the same, and turning workrooms off from said entries; that on January 5, 1903, appellant had working in said mine 100 men; that the decedent was in its employ as a coal miner, and was engaged in mining coal in one of the rooms in said mine; that it was the duty of appellant to use reasonable care to furnish the deceased with a reasonably safe place to work, and to protect him therein, and to that end it was the duty of appellant to keep constantly on hand at its said mine a sufficient supply of timbers, and to deliver at the working place all props, caps, and timbers, so that decedent might be able properly to secure his room from caving in; that it was the further duty of appellant's bank boss to visit and examine each and every working place in the mine at least every alternate day when the miners were at work, and to examine and see that each and every working place was properly secured by props or timbers, and that safety was in all respects assured, and to see that a sufficient supply of props, caps, and timbers was always on hand at decedent's said room or working place, in order that the same might be propped and made secure and safe; that it was the further duty of appellant to place a blackboard, sufficiently large, with the number thereon of every workman employed in the mine, at the most convenient place near the entries, to be used by the workmen in registering thereon such timber as might be required from day to day to make secure their working places.
It is further averred that appellant did not perform its duty in the particulars set forth, but wholly failed and neglected so to do in this, to wit, that it did not keep constantly on hand a sufficient supply of timber of proper length, and deliver to said working place of decedent props, caps, and timbers of proper length when needed and required by decedent, so that he might properly secure said room and working place from caving in; but, on the contrary, it negligently and carelessly refused and neglected to deliver the necessary caps, props and timbers, although requested often by him so to do. It is next alleged that appellant carelessly failed, by its bank boss, to visit and examine the working place at least every alternate day, to see that the same was properly secured by props, etc., and that safety to the miners was in all respects assured, and to see that a sufficient supply of props, etc., was always on hand; that, on the contrary, it did not, by its said bank boss, visit said working place more than once a week, and negligently and carelessly permitted the same to remain without props, caps, and timbers, so that by reason thereof the decedent was unable properly to prop and secure the room and working place in which he was engaged.
It is further averred that appellant negligently and carelessly failed to have and place a blackboard of any kind or character at the most convenient place near the mine entries, whereon the workmen could register their wants for timbers, and that decedent was compelled orally to make such requisition for said timbers that he needed or required; that by reason of such failures, all of which were well known to appellant, or might have been by the use of reasonable diligence, said roof of the room in which decedent was working suddenly gave way, caved in, and fell upon him, thereby inflicting injuries which resulted in his death; that decedent's death occurred wholly by the fault and negligence of the appellant, as herein alleged, and while the decedent was in the exercise of due care and caution, and without any fault or negligence on his part, or the part of appellee.
It is then averred that prior to said accident there was nothing in the appearance of said roof to indicate immediate danger, and no evidence thereof was discoverable by the usual and ordinary tests, which had been made from time to time, and that said roof could and would have been made perfectly safe by decedent but for the negligence of appellant, as herein alleged. It is then alleged that if appellant had performed its duty and had, by its bank boss, visited said working place of decedent, and had seen that safety was in all respects assured, and that timber, props, and caps were always on hand when needed and required, said injury would not have occurred; that had appellant furnished the decedent with timber, caps, and props, as was its duty, decedent could and would have propped and secured the roof so...
To continue reading
Request your trial