Mooney v. Lower Vein Coal Co.

• Citation: 8 N.W. 652,55 Iowa 671
• Parties: MONEY v. THE LOWER VEIN COAL CO
• Decision Date: 20 April 1881
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

8 N.W. 652

55 Iowa 671

MONEY v. THE LOWER VEIN COAL CO

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

April 20, 1881

Appeal from Boone District Court.

THE plaintiff brings this action to recover for injuries received while working as a miner in defendant's coal mine. He alleges that the defendant was negligent in failing to support the roof of the entry where he was at work. The trial was to a jury and resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $ 800. The defendant appeals.

REVERSED.

Kidder & Crooks, for appellant.

Hull & Whitaker, for appellee.

OPINION

DAY J.

The plaintiff is an experienced miner, having been engaged in the business for thirty years, although not acquainted with the formation of roof found in defendant's mine. At the time of the injury he had been employed in defendant's mine eight or nine days. He was engaged in breaking a room off of a branch of the main entry. Whilst he was thus employed a portion of the cap rock forming the roof of the entry, the weight of which was variously estimated at from three or four to seven or eight hundred pounds, fell upon him, breaking his left thigh. The evidence shows that the business of mining is a hazardous one. Portions of the roof often fall. The miners are in the habit of frequently tapping the roof with their tools for the purpose of determining, by the sound, its condition. Evidence was introduced tending to show that this was necessary to their safety; and that it is their duty to watch and ascertain the condition of the roof in the particular locality in which they may be employed. Evidence was further introduced that the effect of opening a room on the side of an entry is to weaken the roof; that it becomes necessary to support it with props; that the company furnishes props, and it is the duty of the miner to put them up; that the plaintiff was directed to prop the roof; that he thought the cap rock was safe where he was working and used his own judgment as to its safety.

I. The court gave the jury, amongst others, the following instructions:

"4. If the injury was caused by the unexpected fall of caprock from the roof of the mine, and neither the plaintiff or defendant knew of the danger, and could not have discovered it by the use of ordinary care and prudence; that it was an unavoidable casualty for which there is no liability, and plaintiff could not recover.

"5. The law requires that the underground manager of every mine must be a practical miner, or one acquainted with the working and management of mines. If you find, from the evidence, that the defendant knew of the danger to which plaintiff was subject, or could have discovered it by the use of ordinary care and caution, or if the fact that the entry was left without support other than the side walls to prevent the falling of the roof was unusual and dangerous, defendant would be liable.

"6. If the mining company used ordinary care and prudence in the construction of the entry where plaintiff was working at the time of the accident; that the roof of the entry was supported as well as would be required by the rules and customs of ordinarily careful and skillful miners under like circumstances, and there was no reason to apprehend danger which was or could have been discovered by ordinary care, or if the plaintiff...