Mammoth Vein Coal Co. v. Looper

Decision Date13 July 1908
Citation112 S.W. 390
PartiesMAMMOTH VEIN COAL CO. v. LOOPER.
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Sebastian County; Daniel Hon, Judge.

Action by O. T. Looper against the Mammoth Vein Coal Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The following are the instructions referred to in the opinion:

The court instructed the jury on his own motion as follows: "(1) The presumption is that the mine owner, the defendant here, has done its duty by furnishing a safe place for its employé, the plaintiff, and if the place furnished for the plaintiff's employment was not safe, and was defective, there is a further presumption that defendant had no notice of the defect, and was not negligently ignorant of it, and it devolves upon the plaintiff to show that the mine in which the alleged injury occurred was not safe, and the defendant had knowledge of it, or by the use of ordinary care and inspection could have had knowledge of it. (2) If the plaintiff was not engaged in the mining of coal, but was engaged in or preparing to remove props or timbers at the time of the alleged injury, he assumed the risk, and defendant would not be liable."

And upon motion of plaintiff the court instructed the jury as follows: "(1) It was the duty of the defendant to exercise ordinary care to keep the roof of the entry or approach into the room where plaintiff was injured in safe condition, as passageways, for its employés. (2) It was the duty of the plaintiff to inspect the roof of the entry or approach into the room where he regularly worked, and he had a right to assume that it was kept in proper condition by the defendant. (3) If you find from the evidence that the roof of the entry or approach into plaintiff's room where he was hurt was unsafe and dangerous, and that defendant's mine foreman knew it, or by the ordinary exercise of care could have known it, then it was negligence for defendant to permit plaintiff to pass or work under the same without warning him of the condition. (4) If the roof of the entry or approach into plaintiff's room was unsafe and dangerous, and defendant's mine foreman knew it before plaintiff went under it, and while under it, without knowledge of its danger, was injured by the fall of rock from the roof, then you will find for the plaintiff. (5) Where a servant is ordered by his master to leave his regular work, and change temporarily, in other duties not in the line of his regular employment, the servant has a right to rely upon the assurance, which the law implies from the giving of said order, that the place to work is reasonably safe, and in such a case the servant need not inspect such a place. (6) If you find for plaintiff, you will assess his damage at a sum which, in your judgment, under the evidence will compensate plaintiff for the pecuniary loss he has suffered by the reason of the injury; and, in determining that, you will take into consideration what he expended for medical aid, together with his loss of time occasioned by the injury, and you will also consider his claim for damages on account of mental anguish, pain, and suffering undergone by him, caused by the injury, and award him such sum, in addition to his pecuniary loss, as in your judgment under the evidence will offset said mental anguish, pain, and suffering, in a sum not greater than that claimed by him in his complaint."

Read & McDonough, for appellant. Jesse A. Harp, for appellee.

HILL, C. J.

Looper was a coal miner, working in the mine of the appellant company, and was injured by a rock falling from the roof in an entry. He brought suit against the company, and recovered judgment, and the company has appealed.

The principal question argued is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict. The coal company introduced no testimony, and the case was tried on the evidence introduced by the plaintiff, which showed this state of facts:...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. Smith
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • May 28, 1928
    ... ... 33) and ... quoted also from Kentucky Coal Co. v. Nanch (C. C ... A.), 165 F. 44). A leading case in Wisconsin ... 646; Tenn. Coal & ... Iron Co. v. King, 50 So. 75; Mommoth Vein Coal Co ... v. Looper, 87 Ark. 217, 112 S.W. 390; [150 Miss. 893] ... ...
  • Mammoth Vein Coal Co. v. Looper
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • July 13, 1908

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