Leonard v. Miami Min. Co.

• Decision Date: 08 November 1906
• Docket Number: 657.
• Citation: 148 F. 827
• Parties: LEONARD v. MIAMI MIN. CO.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

148 F. 827

LEONARD v. MIAMI MIN. CO.

No. 657.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

November 8, 1906

Rufus E. Austin and Thomas J. Jerome (Adams, Jerome & Armfield, on the briefs), for plaintiff in error.

W. G Means, for defendant in error.

Before GOFF and PRITCHARD, Circuit Judges, and WADDILL, District judge.

GOFF Circuit Judge.

The intestate of the plaintiff in error was killed by falling down the shaft of a mine owned and operated by the defendant in error. The shaft was about 600 feet deep, with a number of levels connected with it. At the 520-foot level there was a telephone, while at the other levels the method of communication between those in the mine and those at the mine opening was by a gong attached to a wire rope which passed down the shaft. There were two compartments to the shaft; one used as a bucket way, and the other for a ladder. A large bucket used for hoisting ore and the parties working in the mine was run in one compartment, while the ladder was used by the workmen when the bucket was not in use. On the 5th day of January, 1905, Fred A. Leonard, a laborer in the mine, had been with others hoisted in the bucket to the surface. The bucket was then again started down the mine for the purpose of bringing up others who were at the 520-foot level, when it became detached from the wire rope with which it was being lowered, and, tumbling down the way, which was built on an incline of about 45 degrees, lodged at the 250-foot level. Another bucket was then attached to the rope and lowered, but those in charge of the work were unable to get it below the 250-foot point. In order to open up the shaftway, so that the men at the lower level could be reached with the bucket Leonard started down the ladderway for the purpose of removing from the shaft the detached bucket. Soon after he so started he was picked up by those at the 520-foot level mangled and dead. The plaintiff below charged the defendant with negligence; the declaration alleging that the bucket way was improperly constructed, that the skids of the shaft on which the bucket ran were old, weak, and imperfectly fastened, that the hook to which the bail of the bucket was affixed was unsafe, dangerous and defective, that the gong rope was improperly placed in the bucket way, and that the gong was rung with great difficulty. Every allegation of the complaint charging negligence was specifically denied. The case was tried to a jury, which by direction of the court below returned a verdict for the defendant, on which judgment was duly entered.

Did the court below err in so directing a verdict? Did the testimony offered to the jury show negligence on the part of the defendant? Can we find from the evidence what caused the accident by which Leonard lost his life? Was any fact established by the testimony from which negligence...