Mangus v. Proctor-Eagle Coal Co.
| Decision Date | 15 February 1921 |
| Docket Number | 4164. |
| Citation | 105 S.E. 909,87 W.Va. 718 |
| Parties | MANGUS v. PROCTOR-EAGLE COAL CO. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Submitted February 1, 1921.
Syllabus by the Court.
By virtue of the interpretation provision of chapter 15H of the Code, chapter 10 of the Acts of 1915, it being section 36e (4) of said chapter of the Code of 1918 and section 85 of said chapter of the Acts of 1915, the word "mine" in section 24 of chapter 15H, Code inhibiting the employment of boys under 14 years of age in any coal mine, extends to and includes an incline plane on which coal cars from the mining excavation or underground mining operations, are drawn up to the tipple; wherefore the employment of a boy under said age in work on such incline plane is unlawful.
In such case neither the employer nor the employee can have the benefit of the Workmen's Compensation Act (chapter 15P Code).
Injury of the employee in the course of his employment in such case makes out a prima facie case of injury to him by negligence on the part of the employer.
Error to Circuit Court, Logan County.
Action by Herbert Mangus against the Proctor-Eagle Coal Company to recover for personal injuries. Verdict for plaintiff, and from an order setting the verdict aside, he brings error. Reversed and rendered.
D. B Daugherty, of Huntington, and Lilly & Shrewsbury, of Logan, for plaintiff in error.
E. L. Hogsett, of Huntington, and Chafin & Estep, of Logan, for defendant in error.
This writ of error brings here for review an order setting aside a verdict for $3,000 returned in an action for a personal injury, based upon the theory of an unlawful employment of the plaintiff, an infant under 14 years of age, and consequent denial of the benefit of the Workmen's Compensation Act to the defendant, a coal mining corporation and a subscriber and contributor to the workmen's compensation fund at the time of the employment and injury.
The injury consisted of a fracture of one of the plaintiff's legs below the knee, and it occurred outside of the mine, if the term "mine" is limited to the excavation from which the coal is taken, including the entries, rooms, haulways, etc. The plaintiff had been employed as a water carrier for the men working on and about the tipple and as a sort of "jim hand." He was hurt while engaged in the hooking of loaded coal cars to a rope or cable by which they were drawn upon the tipple. The cars were drawn from the mine by an electric motor and thrown on the track leading up the incline to the tipple by means of a "flying switch." While the plaintiff was attaching cars on the incline, others were thrown onto the track behind them, and they pushed the standing cars forward, with the result that his leg was caught by the wheels and broken as aforesaid.
Evidence of the plaintiff to the effect that he had "trapped" inside of the mine for a day or two, a few days before he was hurt was excluded by the court. Exclusion thereof was made the ground of an exception, but it is not relied upon in argument nor made the basis of an assignment of error. As we have it now, the controversy turns upon the legal question whether the plaintiff was, at the time of his injury unlawfully employed in a coal mine, within the meaning of the statute inhibiting employment of any boy "under 14 years of age * * * in any coal mine." Code, c. 15H, § 24. Being of the opinion that he was not and that his rights and remedies in the premises were given, prescribed, and governed exclusively by the Workmen's Compensation Act, the court set aside the verdict.
In a very carefully considered decision the statute has been construed as not inhibiting employment of boys to do work for a mine operator on the outside of his excavations, such as the carrying of water, drying of sand, and labor on a fill or on a bone table. Daniels v. Fuel Co., 79 W.Va. 255, 90 S.E. 840, following the rule of strict construction applied in Rhodes v. J. B. Coal Co., 79 W.Va. 71, 90 S.E. 796. Since the cause of action involved in that case arose, however, chapter 15H of the Code has been amended in a way that may change the meaning of the phrase "in coal mine." By chapter 10 of the Acts of 1915, said chapter of the Code was completely revised, amended, and re-enacted, and the new matter incorporated in it includes a definition of the word "mine" reading as follows:
"In this act the term 'mine' includes the shafts, slopes, drifts, or incline planes connected with excavations penetrating coal stratum or strata, which excavations are ventilated by one general air current, or divisions thereof, and connected by one general system of mine railroads over which coal may be delivered to one or more points outside the mine, when such is operated by one operator." Acts 1915, c. 10, § 85; Code 1918, c. 15H, § 36e(4).
The word "act" in the portion of said section just quoted means...
To continue reading
Request your trial