Dollar v. Northwestern Imp. Co.
| Decision Date | 25 January 1913 |
| Citation | 129 P. 578,72 Wash. 1 |
| Parties | DOLLAR v. NORTHWESTERN IMPROVEMENT CO. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; H. A. P. Myers Judge.
Action by Anton Dollar against the Northwestern Improvement Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions to enter judgment for defendant.
C. H. Winders, of Seattle, for appellant.
H. M Ramey, Jr., of Seattle, for respondent.
This is an action for damages for personal injuries. The respondent is a coal miner. The appellant is the operator of a coal mine at Ravensdale, Wash., known as mine No. 2. On April 25, 1911 at the hour of about 5:30 o'clock a. m., the respondent while at work in the mine, was injured by a minor gas explosion. His injury was plainful but not permanent, and disabled him from work for a few weeks. The cause was tried before the court and a jury. At the conclusion of the respondent's evidence, the appellant challenged the legal sufficiency of the evidence and moved the court for a directed verdict. This being overruled, the appellant introduced in evidence a diagram of the mine wherein the accident occurred, and rested, and again moved the court for a directed verdict, which motion being overruled, the case was submitted to the jury and a verdict returned for the respondent in the sum of $550, upon which judgment was entered. Motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a motion for new trial were made and overruled, from which the cause is brought here on appeal.
At the time of the accident, the level in mine No. 2 where the respondent was working was being developed. There was a gangway driven both north and south from the entry. The development work at the time was in extending the north gangway, driving an airway 50 feet above and parallel with it, and driving chutes connecting the gangway and the airway. This work was being carried on by the men working in three shifts; the first working from 7 a. m. to 3 p. m.; the second from 3 p. m. to 11 p. m.; and the third from 11 p. m. to 7 a. m. Two men on each shift were engaged in extending the gangway; one in extending the airway, and one the chute. The situation will be better understood by the examination of a diagram which was introduced in evidence and is set out herein.
(Image Omitted)
The respondent was working in chute 16. Two men were extending the gangway and were at the point indicated by the letter X upon the diagram. One was engaged in extending the airway. There was also a motorman, whose duty it was to drive the motor along the gangway. The air passed through the gangway until it reached the last open chute, and then through this chute into the airway, and through the airway out of the mine. The last chute being worked shown on the diagram as 16, as well as the extension of the gangway beyond the last open chute, was supplied with air by what is known as a 'booster' fan, which is set in the gangway and picks up the main volume of air and throws the same into the last chute and to the end of the gangway.
The respondent was the only witness who testified as to the manner of the accident and the method of doing the development work. He went to work on the third shift on the night of April 24th, and worked in chute 16 from 11 p. m. until about 5:30 a. m., during which time he had driven this chute back approximately six feet. At this time he left the face of the chute where he was working to go out into the gangway, and returned in from two to four minutes. Immediately upon his return, the explosion which caused the injury occurred. The respondent worked with an open light as did all the other men employed upon this work. There had been no gas at any time during the working of the three shifts. The air was good, and the first indication of the presence of gas was the explosion itself.
The respondent, in paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 of his complaint, as grounds of negligence on the part of the appellant, alleges: (1) Failure to provide a good and sufficient amount of ventilation; (2) that the air was not made to circulate through the shafts, levels, and working places of the mine: (3) failure to inspect on the day of the accident, or, if an inspection were made and gas discovered, failure to note that fact on the bulletin board at the mouth of the mine; and (4) failure to withdraw all workmen from the portion of the mine wherein the accident occurred.
In Mem & Bal. Code, § 7381, it is provided that: 'The owner, agent or operator of every coal mine, whether operated by shafts, slopes, or drifts, shall provide in every coal mine a good and sufficient amount of vertilation for such persons and animals as may be employed therein, the amount of air in circulation to be in no case less than one hundred cubic feet per minute for each man, boy, horse, or mule employed in said mine, and as much more as the inspector may direct, and said air must be made to circulate through the shafts, levels, stables, and working places of each mine and on the traveling roads to and from all such working places.' It will be noticed that this section of the statute required: (1) That every coal mine shall have a good and sufficient ventilation; (2) the amount of air; and (3) that the air must be made to circulate. A careful reading of the record in this case demonstrates that there is no evidence supporting any of the above allegations of negligence in the complaint, or...
To continue reading
Request your trial