Mather v. Rillston

Decision Date04 March 1895
Docket NumberNo. 139,139
Citation39 L.Ed. 464,156 U.S. 391,15 S.Ct. 464
PartiesMATHER et al. v. RILLSTON
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

This was an action by Richard Rillston against Samuel Mather and others for personal injuries, brought in a court of the state of Michigan, and removed to the circuit court of the United States. At the trial, the jury found for plaintiff. A motion for a new trial was denied (44 Fed. 743), and judgment for plaintiff was entered on the verdict. Defendants sued out this writ of error.

This was an action to recover damages for injuries sustained by the plaintiff from an explosion in an iron mine at Ironwood, in Michigan, alleged to have been caused through the carelessness and negligence of the defendants. It was commenced in the circuit court for one of the counties of that state, and, on motion of the defendants, was removed to the circuit court of the United States for the Western district of Michigan. The declaration sets forth that the defendants were, in May, 1888, and had been for some time previously, operating at Bessemer, in the county mentioned, an iron mine, called the 'Colby Mine.' It then describes the general nature and mode of their mining, the use by them of giant powder or dynamite, or great explosive power, in blasting rock, bowlders, and ore, the manner of its use, and the dangers attending it from explosion, to which it is liable from great heat or concussion with hard substances in working the mine, and alleges carelessness and negligence in handling the same, causing the explosion, destroying the eyes of the plaintiff, and grievously injuring him in different parts of his body, for which injuries damages are claimed in the present action. A more detailed account of the operation of the mine is given in the declaration, and the defendants demanded a trial of the matters set forth, which, under the laws of Michigan, is equivalent to a plea of the general issue in the cause.

The plaintiff was a young man, of only 24 years of age, and he was not a miner by occupation, nor had he any experience as a miner. He was employed by the defendants chiefly in loading tram cars in their service, and knew little of the different explosives used in the mines. In further history of the operation of the mine, and of the condition of the engine house at the time of the explosion complained of, and its probable cause, the declaration alleges that the mining was carried on by sinking shafts, driving drifts, stoping and excavating in the manner usual in the business of iron mining; that, in performing that work, rock, bowlders, iron ore, gravel, sand, and earth were encountered and removed; that, in removing them and other hard substances, it became necessary to blast the same away by employing giant powder or dynamite of great explosive force; that the powder or dynamite thus used was put up in what were called 'sticks,' each stick being circular or nearly so, of a diameter of about 1 1/2 inches, and about 8 inches long, wrapped in a paper covering; that the sticks were packed in sawdust in wooden boxes, there being about 50 in each box; that giant powder or dynamite, similar in kind or character to that thus used by the defendants, and also caps similar to those hereinafter mentioned, had been in general use in the mines of the upper peninsula of Michigan for 20 years previously; that the powder of dynamite during cold weather became frozen or hard, and in that condition would not explode readily, and it was therefore necessary or at least advisable, before using it, to soften or thaw it, which was usually done by means of warm water, that being the safest means for that purpose, and, when thus thawed or softened, it was exceedingly sensitive and liable to explosion from heat or concussion,—a fact well known to the defendants; that the usual manner in which explosions were effected in blasting in the mine was by placing at the end of a stick or price thereof a cap attached to a fuse, which was ignited, and then solid rock and ore could be blasted out by it; that the caps were shaped like ordinary percussion caps, and partly filled with a fulminate, which were then exceedingly sensitive and more powerful and more explosive than the dynamite; that they were liable to explosion from heat or by concussion against each other, or against any other resisting substance, and were put up in tin boxes, each containing about 100, lightly packed in sawdust, and were always ready for use, not requiring any thawing before affixing the fuse and powder.

And the declaration further set forth that, on the day of the explosion hereafter mentioned, there was situated on the surface of the mine a house about 20 feet long by 18 feet wide and 1 story high, which was primarily intended for a dry or changing house for the captains and bosses of the mine, of which there were about 13; that there were in the house two drums, used mainly for lowering timber, into the mine; that these drums were circular and about 3 1/2 and 4 feet in diameter, respectively, and were operated by steam power, the steam being supplied through a pipe or pipes from a boiler about 50 feet distant; that 18 inches from one of the drums was a steam heater, consist- ing of about 60 coils of pipe, receiving steam from the boiler, intended to heat the house and dry the clothes of the men who changed their clothing there when they had become wet from the waters of the mine; that about a foot away from the heater, and against a wall of the house, was a shelf, consisting of a board fastened to the wall; that the drums and machinery in the house were in constant motion day and night, the machinery being kept running even when the drums were not in use hoisting or lowering in the mine, in order to keep the exhaust pipe from freezing; that the action of the machinery produced a constant jar in the building; that there was standing near the shelf and heater a barrel partly filled with ordinary lime; and that on the day of the explosion there was in the engine house, placed there by the direction of the defendants, for the purpose...

To continue reading

Request your trial
128 cases
  • Maloney v. Winston Bros. Co.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 9 Mayo 1910
    ... ... Co. v. Ingraham, 70 F. 219, 17 C ... C. A. 71; Railroad Co. v. Baugh, 149 U.S. 368, 13 ... S.Ct. 914, 37 L.Ed. 773; Mather v. Rillston, 156 ... U.S. 391, 15 S.Ct. 464, 39 L.Ed. 464; Rowden v ... Schoenherr-Walton M. Co., 136 Mo.App. 376, 117 S.W. 695; ... ...
  • Merrill v. Oregon Short Line R. Co.
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • 15 Mayo 1905
    ... ... Mich. Cent. R. R. Co., 150 U.S. 349; ... Union Pacific R. R. Co. v. O'Brien, 161 U.S ... 451; Hough v. Railway Co., 100 U.S. 217; Mather ... v. Rillston, 156 U.S. 391; Chapman v. S. P ... Co., 12 Utah 30; Pool v. S. P. Co., 20 Utah ... 210; Fuller v. Jewett, 80 N.Y. 46; ... ...
  • Engen v. Rambler Copper and Platium Company
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 15 Marzo 1912
    ... ... employer. (Wood on Master's Liability, sec. 403; ... Eastwood v. Min. Co., 86 Hun, 91; Mather v ... Rillston, 156 U.S. 391.) Whether such a rule ought to ... have been adopted was a question of fact for the jury. (2 ... Brickwood's ... ...
  • Morris v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 7 Mayo 1940
    ... ... Burlington, C. R. & N. Railroad Co., 35 Minn ... 73, 27 N.W. 488; O'Neill v. Met. S. Ry. Co., 103 A.D ... 607, 93 N.Y.S. 145; Mather v. Rillston, 156 U.S. 391, 39 ... L.Ed. 464, 15 S.Ct. 464; Chi., Union T. Co. v. Roberts, 131 ... Ill.App. 476, affd. 229 Ill. 481, 82 N.E. 401; ... ...
  • 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