Hector Min. Co. v. Robertson

Decision Date18 May 1896
Citation45 P. 406,22 Colo. 491
PartiesHECTOR MIN. CO. v. ROBERTSON.
CourtColorado Supreme Court

Appeal from district court, San Miguel county.

Action by James Robertson against the Hector Mining Company to recover for personal injuries. Judgment for plaintiff for $2,589, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

John Kinkaid, for appellant.

Hogg &amp Fitzgerrald, for appellee.

HAYT C.J.

At the time of the injuries complained of, one W. R. Beattie had a license to work the dump on the Bradley Mine, in San Miguel county, Colo., and plaintiff and others were employed by him in sorting ore thereon. The defendant was working the Cimarron Mine, and for that purpose was using, by permission certain tunnels on the Bradley mining claim. These claims are situate on a steep mountain side, the Cimarron being above the Bradley. The appellant, the Hector Mining Company, had previously purchased the Cimarron Mine, and obtained the privilege of working the same in part through the Bradley property. Appellee was on the dump upon the Bradley, working the same, with others, at the time of receiving the injuries complained of. The injuries were occasioned by the appellant company discharging from the Cimarron Mine, and the ore house thereon, rock and débris, whereby a piece of rock and débris were hurled against and struck the plaintiff with great force, by means of which he was seriously injured, and rendered insensible for a time, his left eye permanently injured and destroyed, and his right eye injuriously affected. It appears from the plaintiff's witnesses that W. R. Beattie purchased the dump on the Bradley property some time in the spring of 1890, and worked the same at intervals from that time forward until the date of the accident; at times prosecuting the work as an individual enterprise, and at other times in connection with others whom he had associated with him in the enterprise. The dump consisted of ore dumped out during the early days, when $100 ore was considered low grade, and not worth transportation and milling charges. Beattie was thus working this dump when the Hector Mining Company bought the Cimarron Mine. The Bradley Mine being below the Cimarron, the dump was principally on the Bradley ground. During the year 1892 Beattie was engaged in sorting and removing the ore from this dump with a number of men, including the plaintiff, and the Hector Mining Company was working the Cimarron Mine. The evidence shows that the trouble between the employés of the Hector Mining Company and Beattie and his employés dated back to the fall of 1890, at which time the Hector Mining Company commenced working on one of the lower levels, dumping the waste down over the old Cimarron dump on the Bradley claim. Beattie testified that he went up and told the foreman, Mr. Wilson not to dump over this ground, because it was interfering with the prosecution of work by him, and that he had four or five hundred tons of selected ore, more or less, piled up and ready to go to the mill, which ore was being covered up by the defendant company. Beattie further testified that Willson said that he would stop dumping at that place. In the spring of 1892, Beattie went up to work the dump, as was his usual custom, putting on a crew of men, sorting over the dump preparatory to removing the ore for treatment to a mill which he had erected at a point further down the mountain. In a short time the men working for Beattie began to complain that rock was being rolled down upon them by the employés of the defendant company. Thereupon Beattie again went up and notified Mr. Wilson that he was endangering the lives of the men by dumping in that particular spot. In the meantime the Hector Mining Company had built a track...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Santa Fe P. & P. Ry. Co. v. Ford
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • 12 Mayo 1906
    ... ... 942; Texas Pac ... Ry. Co. v. Lively, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 554, 38 S.W. 370; ... Hector Mining Co. v. Robertson, 22 Colo. 491, 45 P ... 406; Blakesly v. Consolidated Ry. Co., 105 Mich ... ...
  • Loney v. Laramie Auto Co.
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 26 Abril 1927
    ...by defendant's servant; plaintiff was hurt by a dangerous instrumentality set in motion through defendant's negligence; Mining Co. v. Robertson, 22 Colo. 491; Means v. Ry. Co., 144 Cal. 473; 1 Ann. Cas. Fitzpatrick v. Penfield, (Pa.) 109 A. 653; Herrick v. Wixon, (Mich.) 80 N.W. 117; Lowe v......
  • Denver City Tramway Co. v. Wright
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • 7 Junio 1909
    ... ... Colo. 367] Charles J. Hughes, Jr., Gerald Hughes, Albert ... Smith, and H. S. Robertson for appellant ... Talbot, ... Denison & Wadley, for appellee ... WHITE, ... injury. Denver & B. P. R. T. Co. v. Dwyer, 20 Colo. 132, 137, ... 138, 36 P. 1106; Hector Min. Co. v. Robertson, 22 Colo. 491, ... 494, 45 P. 406; Posten v. Denver Tram. Co., 11 Colo.App ... ...
  • Barr v. Colorado Springs & I. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • 5 Marzo 1917
    ... ... 524; Denver & Berkley P. R. T. Co. v ... Dwyer, 20 Colo. 132, 36 P. 1106; Hector M. Co. v. Robertson, ... 22 Colo. 491, 45 P. 406; D. & R. G. R. R. Co. v. Buffehr, 30 ... Colo ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT