D.H. Davis Coal Co. v. Polland
Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
Citation | 158 Ind. 607,62 N.E. 492 |
Parties | D. H. DAVIS COAL CO. v. POLLAND. |
Decision Date | 15 January 1902 |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Clay county; S. M. McGregor, Judge.
Action by Samuel Polland against the D. H. Davis Coal Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals, and, the appellate court being unable to agree (60 N. E. 1124), the cause is transferred to the supreme court. Affirmed.George A. Knight, for appellant. A. W. Knight and S. D. Coffey, for appellee.
This cause has been transferred here because the appellate court was equally divided on the questions involved. Coal Co. v. Polland (Ind. App.) 60 N. E. 1124. Appellee had judgment against appellant for damages for personal injuries. The assignments are that the court erred in overruling appellant's demurrer to the complaint, motion for judgment on the jury's answers to interrogatories notwithstanding the general verdict, and motion for a new trial.
1. The complaint is as follows:
The parts of the statutes on mines that are pertinent provide: “Miners' bosses shall visit their miners in their working places at least once every day where any number not less than ten nor more than 50 miners are employed, and as often as once every two days when more than fifty miners are employed.” Section 7447, Burns' Rev. St. 1901 (section 5472a, Horner's Rev. St. 1901). “The owner, operator, agent or lessee of any coal mine in this state shall keep a sufficient supply of timber at the mine, and the owner, operator, agent or lessee shall deliver all props, caps and timbers (of proper length) to the rooms of the workmen when needed and required, so that the workmen may at all times be able to properly secure the workings from caving in.” Section 7466, Burns' Rev. St. 1901 (section 5480g, Horner's Rev. St. 1901). Section 7472, Burns' Rev. St. 1901 (section 5480m, Horner's Rev. St. 1901). “For any injury to persons or property occasioned by any violation of this act, or any wilful failure to comply with any of its provisions, a right of action against the owner, operator, agent or lessee shall accrue to the party injured for the direct injury sustained thereby.” Section 7473, Burns' Rev. St. 1901 (section 5480n, Horner's Rev. St. 1901).
Two questions arise on the complaint,- assumption of risk, and contributory negligence.
First. The complaint does not negative the employé's knowledge of the employer's negligent failure to perform the duties imposed by statute, and of the dangers resulting therefrom. If the cause of action in this case were based upon the employer's neglect to perform a common-law duty, or if there were no valid distinction between neglect of a common-law duty and neglect of a specific statutory duty, the complaint would be fatally defective. Ames v. Railway Co., 135 Ind. 363, 35 N. E. 117; Railroad Co. v. Kemper, 147 Ind. 561, 47 N. E. 214;Whitcomb v. Oil Co., 153 Ind. 513, 55 N. E. 440. By the common law an employer is required to exercise that degree of care in providing his employé a safe working place and tools and appliances which a reasonably prudent person would exercise under like circumstances. The rule is general. There is no fixed quantum of care that must be exercised invariably in all cases. In each case the quantum of care required by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Princeton Coal Mining Co. v. Lawrence
......354, 77 N. E. 571;Wilmington, etc., Co. v. Sloan, 225 Ill. 467, 80 N. E. 265;Davis v. Illinois, etc., Co., 232 Ill. 284, 83 N. E. 836;Moore v. Centralia, etc., Co., 140 Ill. App. ......
-
Princeton Coal Mining Co. v. Lawrence
......571; Wilmington, etc., . Coal Co. v. Sloan (1907), 225 Ill. 467, 80. N.E. 265; Davis v. Illinois Collieries Co. . (1908), 232 Ill. 284, 83 N.E. 836; Moore v. Centralia Coal Co. ... either a civil cause of action is given. Davis Coal. Co. v. Polland (1902), 158 Ind. 607, 92 Am. St. 319, 62 N.E. 492. . . The. statute of ......
-
Inland Steel Co. v. Yedinak
......Davis Coal Co. v. Polland, 158 Ind. 607, 62 N. E. 492, 92 Am. St. Rep. ......
-
Hall v. West & Slade Mill Co.
......Michigan Starch Co. (Mich.) 100 N.W. 447; Davis Coal Co. v. Polland, 158 Ind. 607, 62. N.E. 492, 92 Am. St. Rep. ......