McMahon v. IDA Min. Co.
| Citation | 70 N.W. 478,95 Wis. 308 |
| Parties | MCMAHON v. IDA MIN. CO. |
| Decision Date | 23 February 1897 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, La Fayette county; George Clementson, Judge.
Action by Hugh McMahon against the Ida Mining Company. Plaintiff was nonsuited, and appeals. Reversed.
This is an action to recover for personal injuries received by the appellant while at work as a miner in the respondent's lead and zinc mine, by the discharge of a dynamite blast under circumstances which, it is alleged, establish actionable negligence on the part of the respondent. The gist of the complaint is that the plaintiff was set to work by a shift boss in a certain part of the mine where there were concealed unexploded blasts known to the shift boss, but not to the plaintiff; and that plaintiff, in ignorance of the danger, while drilling and preparing for a blast, was injured by the explosion of one of the concealed blasts. The facts appearing by the plaintiff's evidence were substantially as follows: The defendant's mine is about 100 feet below the surface of the ground, in solid rock, the mining being carried on in drifts of varying width and height. Holes were drilled in the forehead of the drift by steam power. These holes were then charged with dynamite, which was exploded by electricity, several such blasts being frequently discharged simultaneously. These holes were sometimes drilled so deep that the explosive power of the dynamite was not observable at the mouth of the hole. Such holes in which a blast had been fired, but had not apparently rent the rock, were called “butts” or the “butt end” of a hole. The plaintiff was an experienced miner, and had worked for defendant about a month prior to the accident in question. The evidence showed that one Thomas Cadden was also in the employ of the company at the time of the accident, and was what was termed a “shift boss.” The duties of the shift boss appear to be to direct the men in the mine where to work. The shift boss was called as a witness, and testified that on the 1st of July, 1894, he loaded six holes in the forehead of a certain drift with dynamite, and endeavered to explode the same by electricity; that there were three holes that had wires sticking out of them after the blast had been fired, and this was evidence that the charges in the holes had not exploded. The evidence further showed that no further work was done at this place in the mine until the 17th day of July following, at which time the shift boss placed the plaintiff and one Hugh Cadden at work at the forehead in question. The plaintiff testified that he did not hear the shift boss say anything about unexploded blasts, but his fellow laborer says that the shift boss said that there were two unexploded blasts there, and that they must look out for them. The two workmen found two holes, which had wires sticking out of them, and concluded that they were the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brayman v. Russell & Pugh Lumber Co.
... ... perils." ( Hardy v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., ... 149 Iowa 41, 127 N.W. 1093; McMahon v. Idaho Mining Co., 95 ... Wis. 308, 60 Am. St. 117, 70 N.W. 478.) ... The ... master is liable where he directs the employee into some ... Schmeltzer & Co. v. Paiz (Tex. Civ.), 128 S.W. 912; ... Belton Oil Co. v. Duncan , 60 Tex. Civ. App. 257, 127 ... S.W. 884; Jellico Coal Min. Co. v. Woods , 154 Ky ... 683, 159 S.W. 530; Marshall v. United Rys. Co. of St ... Louis (Mo. App.), 184 S.W. 159; Heilig v. Southern ... ...
-
Dolphin v. Peacock Mining Co.
...was open and obvious was a jury question, and the finding of the jury upon that question cannot be disturbed. McMahon v. Ida M. Co., 95 Wis. 308, 70 N. W. 478, 60 Am. St. Rep. 117;Nix v. Reiss C. Co., 114 Wis. 493, 90 N. W. 437. [6] It is further urged by appellant that, even if the danger ......
-
Wiskie v. Montello Granite Co.
...v. Coal Co., 101 Wis. 579, 77 N. W. 875, 70 Am. St. Rep. 932. Counsel insist that this case is ruled by McMahon v. Mining Co., 95 Wis. 308, 70 N. W. 478, 60 Am. St. Rep. 117. In our judgment, that case is clearly distinguishable from the case at bar. In the statement of the case it is said:......
-
Knudsen v. La Crosse Stone Co.
...it would make no difference that he occasionally or intermittently helped in some other part of the work. McMahon v. Ida Mining Co., 95 Wis. 308, 70 N. W. 478, 60 Am. St. Rep. 117. At a time when it was the settled law of this state that the brakemen and section-men on a railroad were fello......