Helliel v. Piney Coal & Coke Co

Citation70 W.Va. 45,73 S.E. 289
CourtSupreme Court of West Virginia
Decision Date28 November 1911
PartiesHELLIEL. v. PINEY COAL & COKE CO.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 12, 1912.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Master and Servant (§ 190*)—Injuries to Servant—Negligence op Foreman.

The duty to see that refuge holes along motor roads in coal mines are kept, as required by section 10 of chapter 78, Acts of 1907 (Code Supp. 1909, c. 15h), rests on the mine foreman, not on the mine owner, and for injury to a miner resulting from their absence the mine owner is not liable.

[Ed. Note.—F'or other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§ 449-474; Dec. Dig. § 190.*]

Error to Circuit Court, Raleigh County.

Action by George Helliel against the Piney Coal & Coke Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed, and new trial granted.

Watts, Davis & Davis, for plaintiff in error.

T. N. Read and A. A. Lilly, for defendant in error.

BRANNON, J. George Helliel was a coal miner in the employ of Piney Coal & Coke Company, digging in its mine. While going home, walking through the main entry, he was caught by some coal cars, which had broken loose from the motor to which they were attached and ran back downgrade, and caught him and injured him by reason of the space between the cars and the rib or wall of the mine being too narrow. He sued the company and recovered judgment, and the company sued out a writ of error.

The evidence presents only two matters charged as constituting negligence—one the want of lights on the rear car of the train, the other the want of refuge holes in the mine along the entry. This ease depends on the construction to be given sections 10 and 15 of chapter 78, Acts of 1907, Regular Session, Supplement Code of 1909, serial sections 408 and 410. As to the want of lights on the car we may at once dismiss it from consideration, because, as the attorney for the plaintiff concedes, the duty to see that lights are kept on such cars is one resting on the mine foreman, not on the mine owner. The real question of this case is whether the failure to make refuge holes is a failure of duty on the part of the coal company, or a failure of duty on the part of the mine foreman, for which the coal operator is not liable. Said section 10 provides that "all slopes, engine-planes or motor roads used by persons in any mines shall be made of sufficient width to permit persons to pass moving cars with safety, or refuge holes of ample dimensions, and not more than sixty feet apart, shall be made on one side of said slope, engine-plane or motor road." That section does not expressly say whose duty it shall be to see that such refuge holes are made, and it is claimed that such duty rests on the mine owner. We must read this section, using the language quoted along with a provision found in section 15 reading as follows: "On all haulways space not less than ten feet long and two feet and six inches wide, between the wagon and the rib, shall be kept open at distances not exceeding one hundred feet apart, in which shelter from passing wagons may be had." Section 15 is that which requires the coal operator to appoint mine foreman and prescribe his duties, and those duties prescribed in that section rest upon the mine foreman, and a failure to perform them does not render the operator liable, as held in Bralley v. Coal & Coke Company, 66 W. Va. 278, 66 S. E. 684, and cases there cited. Under principles of those cases it is clear that the duty of seeing that spaces 10 feet long and 2 feet and 6 inches wide are kept between the rib or wall of the haulway and coal cars is a duty of the mine foreman. The duties in that section 15 are those imposed on the mine foreman. I repeat that the duty of making those spaces mentioned in the quotation above given from ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Kinder v. Boomer Coal & Coke Co.
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • 12 March 1918
    ...840; Bralley, Adm'r, v. Coal & Coke Co., 66 W.Va. 278, 66 S.E. 684, 40 L. R. A. (N. S.) 945, 19 Ann. Cas. 510. In Helliel v. Piney Coal & Coke Co., 70 W.Va. 45, 73 S.E. 289, the rule as refuge holes in coal mines is thus stated in the syllabus: "The duty to see that refuge holes along motor......
  • Kinder v. Boomer Coal & Coke Co
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • 12 March 1918
    ...Adm'r, v. Coal & Coke Co., 66 W. Va. 278, 66 S. E. 684, 40 L. R. A. (N. S.) 945, 19 Ann. Cas. 510. In Helliel v. Piney Coal & Coke Co., 70 W. Va. 45, 73 S. E. 289, the rule as to refuge holes in coal mines is thus stated in the syllabus: "The duty to see that refuge holes along motor roads ......
  • Crockett v. Black Wolf Coal & Coke Co
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • 15 December 1914
    ...S. E. 446; Bralley v. Tidewater C. & C. Co., 66 W. Va. 278, 66 S. E. 684, 40 L. R. A. (N. S.) 945, 19 Ann. Cus. 510; Helliel v. Piney C. & C. Co., 70 W. Va. 45, 73 S. E. 289; Peterson v. Collieries Co., 71 W. Va. 334, 76 S. E. 664; May v. Davis C. & C. Co., 71 W. Va. 220, 76 S. E. 342. A co......
  • Crockett v. Black Wolf Coal & Coke Co.
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • 15 December 1914
    ... ... 337, 62 ... S.E. 446; Bralley v. Tidewater C. & C. Co., 66 W.Va ... 278, 66 S.E. 684, 40 L.R.A. (N. S.) 945, 19 Ann.Cas. 510; ... Helliel v. Piney C. & C. Co., 70 W.Va. 45, 73 S.E ... 289; Peterson v. Collieries Co., 71 W.Va. 334, 76 ... S.E. 664; May v. Davis C. & C. Co., 71 W.Va ... ...
  • 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