Kansas & T. Coal Co. v. Chandler

• Decision Date: 20 June 1903
• Citation: 77 S.W. 912
• Parties: KANSAS & T. COAL CO. v. CHANDLER.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

77 S.W. 912

KANSAS & T. COAL CO. v. CHANDLER.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

June 20, 1903.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Sebastian County; Styles T. Rowe, Judge.

Action by W. F. Chandler against the Kansas & Texas Coal Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Reversed.

W. F. Chandler was employed to work as a miner in a coal mine owned by the Kansas & Texas Coal Company. He commenced work about the 18th of January, 1900, and continued to work in the mine until the 19th day of February, when he was injured by the fall of a rock from the roof of the room in which he was at work mining coal. Chandler sued the company for damages. On the trial he testified that he was without experience in mining coal before being employed by the company, though his testimony on this point is not clear, for in reply to a question about whether Godt, the foreman of the company, or Brown, the local superintendent, knew that he had previously worked as a miner or not, he replied, "I told Billie Brown I had dug coal." The examination then proceeded as follows: "Q. What did you tell them, if you told them anything, about mining coal? A. I never told them anything about mining coal a minute. Q. did the company know you had not mined coal much when they employed you? A. I don't know whether they did or not. Q. I thought you told Mr. Brown that you hadn't mined coal at all? A. Yes, I told him that I hadn't mined coal; that I had a job firing." He also testified that none of the employés of the company cautioned him or gave him any instructions about how to protect himself against the dangers of mining. The testimony shows that he and a miner named Meyers had been working together in the same room. The company constructed the passageway to the rooms in which the miners worked. Along this passageway or entry a track was laid on which a car was operated, the car being drawn by a mule. Opposite the entrance to the room in which the miner worked a switch was provided by which cars when needed could be brought into the room. The cars for the miner were delivered by the driver at the switch at the entrance to the rooms, at which place it was received by the miner, who pushed it into the room near to the face of the coal. The evidence shows that it was the duty of the company to properly safeguard the passageways and also provide necessary timbers for the miners to securely prop the roof of his room. The company delivered these timbers at the switch when it delivered the cars — that is, at or near the entrance of the room. These timbers designed to support the roof of the room and prevent it falling are called "props" and "caps." A prop is a stick of wood 6 to 8 inches square and from 4 to 5 feet long, according to the height of the roof from the floor. A cap is a piece of wood 12 to 16 inches long, about 4 to 6 inches wide, and from ½ inch to 1¼ inches thick. These caps, as the name implies, are used on top of the prop, so that it will cover more space on the roof, and give greater bearing against the roof to support it than the end of the prop would afford. Besides these timbers, ties are used in the mines upon which to lay the track that the cars go on. Ties are about the same thickness as props, and are sometimes used for props; but ties cost more than props, and for that reason their use as props is discouraged by the company. Chandler testified that while working in the mine he needed timbers to support and safeguard his roof, and that on Friday before the injury occurred on Monday he ordered the driver to bring him some props and caps, but that he failed to bring them. He did not work on Saturday. On Monday, about noon, he spoke to Godt, the foreman of the company, whose duty it was to see that timbers of that kind were furnished, and told him that he needed timbers. "He told me," said Chandler, "to go ahead; that he would send me timbers in plenty time to put up; that he wanted that place drove through." He further testified that when he went to work after this conversation with the foreman he had no props or caps, and that there were no timbers in his room or near the entrance that he could get; that he found a tie, and set it up in the room to support a rock which could be seen in the roof overhead, and to prevent the rock from falling on him while at work. While he was at work the rock fell on him, crushed his foot so that it had to be amputated, and otherwise injured him. Plaintiff stated that he knew the roof was dangerous, but did not suppose that the danger was immediate; that at the time of the accident he was expecting props to come in, and continued at work upon the request and promise of the foreman. On the part of the defendant there was testimony tending to show that the company had furnished plaintiff with all the timber he needed, and that the injury was caused by the carelessness of plaintiff in failing to use these timbers to prop the roof of his room. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $1,999, and defendant appealed.

Hill & Brizzolaid, for appellant. Jno. E. Tatum and Robert A. Rowe, for appellee.

RIDDICK, J. (after stating the facts).

This is an appeal from a judgment in an action by an employé of a mining company to recover damages from the company for an injury received by him while at work in its mine. The evidence is very conflicting, but it is unnecessary for us to notice it further than to enable us to determine whether the case was properly submitted to the jury. The plaintiff was injured by the fall of a rock from the roof of a room in the mine where he was at work digging coal. If the roof had been properly supported by timbers, the rock would not have fallen. It was the duty of the defendant company to furnish the miners in its employ with sufficient and suitable timbers called "props" and "caps" to support the roof of the room in which they worked, and it was the duty of the miner to use these timbers, and see that the roof was properly supported. Plaintiff testified that the company failed to furnish him sufficient timbers in this instance, though he had repeatedly requested them to do so. He said that only two or three hours before the injury occurred he had requested the foreman of the company to have timbers sent to him. "He told me," said plaintiff, "to go ahead; that he would send me timbers in plenty time to put up; that he wanted that place drove through." Relying on this promise and request of the foreman, plaintiff says that he went ahead with his work, and was injured. This testimony of plaintiff was contradicted by witnesses for the defendant; but the jury having found in favor of plaintiff, we will, for the present, assume that it is a correct statement of the facts. Counsel for defendant contends that, if this be so, yet that the evidence shows that plaintiff carelessly and willfully exposed himself to a known danger, and for that reason he cannot recover. It is doubtless true that, where the danger is so obvious and imminent that no one but a reckless person would, under like circumstances, expose himself to it, if the servant continues knowingly to expose himself to the danger, and is injured in consequence of his own recklessness, he cannot recover, even though the master was also at fault. If one remains at work under a rock which he knows is liable to fall at any moment, his injury from the fall of the rock is a consequence of his own carelessness, and prevents a recovery on his part. But in this case, if the plaintiff knew that the rock was likely to fall if unsupported, yet it appears that he did attempt to support it by placing a tie under it. This support turned out to be insufficient, but the evidence does not so conclusively show that the danger to which plaintiff exposed...