Haney v. St. Regis Mining & Smelting Co.

• Decision Date: 25 June 1918
• Docket Number: No. 2230.,2230.
• Citation: 205 S.W. 93
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Parties: HANEY v. ST. REGIS MINING & SMELTING CO.

205 S.W. 93

HANEY v. ST. REGIS MINING & SMELTING CO.

No. 2230.

Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri.

June 25, 1918.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jasper County; Robert A. Pearson, Judge.

Action by Henry Haney against the St. Regis Mining & Smelting Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

A. E. Spencer, of Joplin, for appellant. James Mclndoe and Walden & Andrews, all of Joplin, for respondent.

STURGIS, P. J.

The plaintiff recovered a judgment for personal injuries inflicted by a falling rock while working as a tub holster at the bottom of a shaft in defendant's mine. The defendant appeals.

The shaft was some 200 feet deep, and the ore-bearing rock was raised in cans or tubs, by means of a cable and engine operated by the hoisterman. The plaintiff's duties were to unloose the empty cans, to hook the cable to the loaded cans, steady same, and start them up the middle of the shaft. His place of work necessarily exposed him to dangers from anything falling down the shaft. Plaintiff charges that his injuries were caused by defendant's negligence in failing to make his place of work safe in this:

"That in raising said loaded cans the same were likely to strike the sides of the shaft and the pigeon hole of the derrick, and to cause rock to fall down the shaft and injure plaintiff. * * * That defendant negligently and carelessly failed to provide and maintain a bell, commonly used in the Joplin mining district and known as a `skidoo bell,' in said shaft, or other warning signal by means of which the hoisterman in charge of and operating said hoisting machine might give warning to persons working at the foot or bottom of said shaft of the falling of boulders and rocks in said shaft. That without said warning signal said shaft was in a dangerous and unsafe condition."

Plaintiff further charges that on December 11, 1916, while working at the bottom of said shaft, he hooked a loaded can of dirt and rock to this cable, and same was being hoisted to the top, when a large rock fell from the can near the top of the shaft; that by reason of plaintiff not having any protection, and by reason of the shaft not being protected by a proper warning or "skidoo bell," and no warning being given him of the falling rock, he was struck thereby and severely injured.

The floor of the derrick was some 40 or 50 feet above the surface of the ground and mouth of the shaft, and the pigeon hole mentioned was an opening through this floor, about 4 feet square, through which the loaded cans of rock and dirt passed to be unloaded. This pigeon hole was considerably smaller than the shaft, and the space between the mouth of the shaft and the pigeon hole was inclosed by boards converging to the pigeon hole. On account of this narrowing channel, through which the tubs of rock ascended from the mouth of the shaft to the pigeon hole, there was more liability of the tubs striking or bumping the sides near the top than elsewhere. On account of the rapid speed of the ascending tub attached to the cable, there was always more or less swaying and turning of the same. The tub hooker (plaintiff) had only a limited time in which to steady and adjust the tub on starting it. There was a signal bell near the hoisterman, connected by a cord with the bottom of the shaft, by which the tub hooker indicated when he had fastened the cable to the loaded tub. The hoisterman then raised the tub clear of the ground, paused a moment for the tub to be steadied and adjusted to the middle of the shaft, and then pulled it rapidly to the top. The tub hooker watched the ascending tub for some distance, and if it was swaying too much, or if anything went wrong, he signaled the hoisterman to stop or go slow. The hoisterman was supposed to watch the tub as it neared the mouth of the shaft, and slow down as it approached the pigeon hole, so as to prevent it striking the side. If the tub did bump the side, the natural result would be to precipitate dirt and rock to the bottom of the shaft. The loaded tubs held about 1,250 pounds of dirt and rock, and were about 30 inches in diameter.

The evidence is that on the occasion in question the loaded tub was adjusted by plaintiff and ascended with only the usual swaying or rocking, so far as he could see. The tub bumped near the pigeon hole, and a rock falling therefrom struck the plaintiff on the arm, resulting in a serious and permanent injury. The hoisterman disclaimed any negligence on his part, and so the jury found.

A skidoo bell, so called in the expressive language of the miners, and the lack of which is charged as negligence, is a simple safety device. It is merely a bell placed anywhere near the bottom of the shaft, and connected by wires, electrically charged by dry batteries, with a button located in easy reach of the hoisterman. In case rock or other material falls from a bumping tub or otherwise, the hoisterman, by touching the button, warns the tub hooker and the other persons at the bottom of the shaft, to skidoo to safety. It was shown without question that this was an effective safety device, and was in general use in that mining district, especially in the larger mines, where the work was rapid. It was comparatively inexpensive, and had come into common use during the last three or four years prior to this accident. Several miners of experience testified from personal experience and observation to its effectiveness in preventing accidents similar to tills one.

The defendant practically conceded the need and effectiveness of such device, and sought to excuse itself for not having one installed by reason of the mine being a new one, with the drifts so short that the necessary shooting and blasting near the bottom of the shaft rendered its maintainance then impracticable. The defendant's evidence is to the effect that such nearby blasting would destroy and render useless such device, if installed under such conditions. It was shown, however, that defendant was then pre paring to install such device, and had the necessary wiring down the shaft, and did put such device in use a few days thereafter. Plaintiff's evidence is to the effect that such nearby blasting would generally only disconnect the wiring, and that this could easily and quickly be remedied, and that the bell could be placed so high up in the shaft; as to be "practically free from such dangers. The court submitted this question to the jury on defendant's instruction as follows:

"Unless you find and believe from the evidence, and not from speculation or conjecture, that the work in defendant's mine at the time of the injury had progressed to a point where a reasonably careful mine operator would have had and maintained a...