Czarecki v. Seattle & S.F. Ry. & Nav. Co.

• Decision Date: 08 November 1902
• Citation: 30 Wash. 288,70 P. 750
• Parties: CZARECKI et al. v. SEATTLE & S. F. RY. & NAV. CO. et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

70 P. 750

30 Wash. 288

CZARECKI et al. v. SEATTLE & S. F. RY. & NAV. CO. et al.

Supreme Court of Washington

November 8, 1902

Appeal from superior court, King county; W. R. Bell, Judge.

Action by Josie Czarecki and others against the Seattle & San Francisco Railway & Navigation Company and others. Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Wilshire & Kenaga, for appellants.

Govner Teats and Root, Palmer & Brown, for respondents.

REAVIS C.J.

Appellants were jointly operating a coal mine at Leary, King county. Joseph C. Czarecki, the deceased, had for several months prior to the 26th day of October, 1900, been in the employ of appellants as a coal miner. The general plan of working the mine was as follows: A gangway or tunnel had been driven in upon the vein of coal a distance of about 450 feet, and 15 chutes, about 30 feet apart, had been driven above the gangway. No. 15 was the inside chute. The chutes were driven upward on the vein from the gangway at a pitch of between 40~ and 45~. At a distance of 20 feet up the chutes from the gangway there was the first crosscut, 4 feet by 4 in size, driven from chute No. 15 parallel with the gangway, and intersecting the other chutes. Chute No. 10 was driven through to the surface of the ground on the top of the hill, and at its exit was an electrical ventilating fan. All the chutes to and including No. 13 were closed between the gangway and first crosscut to prevent the air going through them from the gangway, and the main air course was through the gangway to chutes 14 and 15, and thence through them to the first crosscut, and thence back along the first crosscut to the exit at the top of chute No. 10. The second crosscut was driven through from chute No. 13, interesting chutes Nos 12, 11, and 10, 30 feet above the first crosscut; and 30 feet above the second was the third crosscut, driven through between chutes 13 and 12. A permanent stopping was placed between chutes 13 and 12 in both the second and third crosscuts, by which the air current was turned up chute No. 13 to the third crosscut, and thence to the exit at chute 10. The fan at the top of No. 10 created a vacuum, and the pressure of air blowing in at the gangway and into the crosscuts through chutes 14 and 15, and thence through chute 13, the third crosscut, and to the exit made the circulation for ventilating the mine. The deceased went to work on the morning of the 26th of October, 1900, in chute No. 14, which had been before mined about 18 feet above the first crosscut by other miners. That afternoon he was found dead from suffocation caused by 'black damp,'--carbonic acid gas. He was found by two or three miners who were searching for him. The allegations of negligence in the complaint are as follows 'That in the operation of the same mine on the 25th and 26th days of October, 1900, the defendants allowed the coal to go down through chute No. 15 and fill and block the air way and air passage so that at or about the time of the death of deceased, herein complained of, there was no ventilation in the said mine, and especially in chute 14, and the air could not pass through the air ways, and could not ventilate the said mine and clear the same from poisonous and obnoxious gases. That in the operation of the said mine and the mining of the chutes the defendants did not provide brattice for the purpose of forcing the air up into the chutes, and at the time of the death of deceased, and for a long time prior thereto, there was no air passage up into the working place of chute No. 14 whatever, and through the negligence of the said defendants in not providing brattice, so as to force the air up into the chutes, and clear the same of gas and smoke and in allowing the air way to become blocked with coal at and near chute No. 15; and gas accumulated in the working place of chute No. 14, as herein set out, which was unknown to deceased, but known to defendants, and, by reasonable care and diligence and inspection, defendants could have discovered the same before ordering the deceased to enter the working place as herein complained of, in said chute No. 14, on the said 26th day of October, 1900. That upon the 26th day of October, 1900, the deceased, John Czarecki, was directed by the foreman of the defendants, J. O. Edward, to work in chute No. 14. That the said chute was at that time driven up into the coal above the air way of first crosscut to the height of about 49 feet. That the deceased, John Czarecki, went to his working place in said chute No. 14, which was at or near the said second crosscut, as directed by the said defendants' foreman, and without any knowledge of the existence of deathly and obnoxious gases which had accumulated and been allowed to accumulate by the defendants in the working place of said deceased through the insufficient amount of ventilation, and was smothered and suffocated and killed by the said poisonous gases soon after going into his working place upon the said 26th day of October, 1900.' The answer denies the material allegations of the complaint, and sets up affirmatively as defenses contributory negligence on the part of deceased, and that he assumed the risk of a dangerous place in the mine. A number of special interrogatories were submitted to the jury at the request of the appellants, which, together with the answers, were as follows: '(1) Was it the duty of John Czarecki, the deceased, to put up a brattice cloth or canvas in the chute in which he was working? Answer. No. (2) Was a brattice cloth or canvas up in place in chute fourteen, above the first crosscut in defendants' mine? Answer. No. (4) Was chute fourteen above the first crosscut in defendants' mine the working place of the deceased, John Czarecki? Answer. Yes. (5) Was there sufficient air circulating at the intersection of the first crosscut and chute fourteen to sustain the life of a man working as a miner in the defendants' mine? Answer. Yes; at said point. (6) Would a brattice cloth or canvas put up in place in chute fourteen, above the first crosscut, have caused to circulate, at the working place of the deceased, air circulating in the crosscut at its intersection with said chute on the day he was found dead at his working place? Answer. Yes; providing no coal was in the chute. (7) Was there as much air circulating at the place where the first crosscut intersects chute fourteen as there was circulating at the working place of David Steel in chute thirteen on the day of the death of the deceased? Answer. No. (8) Was there sufficient air circulating at the working place of David Steel, in chute thirteen, to sustain the life of a man working as a miner in the defendants' mine on the day of the death of the deceased? Answer. Yes; at the intersection of thirteen chute and third crosscut. (9) Was there on the day of the death of the deceased a circulation of air at the place in the first crosscut where it intersects chute fifteen, sufficient to sustain the life of a man working as a miner in defendants' mine? Answer. Yes; some, but not enough to sustain life. (10) Did the man way in chute fourteen,...