Odin Coal Co. v. Denman

• Decision Date: 21 April 1900
• Citation: 185 Ill. 413,57 N.E. 192
• Parties: ODIN COAL CO. v. DENMAN.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

185 Ill. 413

57 N.E. 192

ODIN COAL CO.

v.DENMAN.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April 21, 1900.

Appeal from appellate court, Fourth district.

Action by Effie Denman against the Odin Coal Company. From a judgment of the appellate court (84 Ill. App. 190) affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.L. M. Kagy and Van Hoorebeke & Louden, for appellant.

Frank F. Noleman and W. F. Bundy, for appellee.

BOGGS, J.

Charles Denman,-husband of appellee,-an employé in the coal mine owned and operated by the appellant company, was killed by falling into the opening of the shaft at the surface of the ground, and thence to the bottom of the mine. The appellee recovered judgment against the appellant company in the circuit court of Marion county in the sum of $2,000, on a declaration which, in the first count, charged that the deceased came to his death by reason of the ‘willful failure’ of the appellant company to furnish a sufficient light at the top of the shaft of the mine, as required by section 6 of chapter 93, entitled ‘Miners' (Hurd's Rev. St. 1889, p. 929), and, in the fourth count, that the death of the decedent was occasioned by the ‘willful failure’ of the appellant company to securely fence the top of the shaft by gates properly protecting the shaft, as is required by section 8 of the same chapter of the statute. The declaration contained other counts, but the verdict was rendered on the said first and fourth counts. The judgment was affirmed by the appellate court for the Fourth district, and this is a further appeal perfected to this court.

Deceased was one of a force of men called the ‘night shift,’ employed by the appellant company to work in the mine during the night. When going down the shaft of the mine, the night shift entered the cage at the opening of the shaft at the surface of the ground, and when coming out they left the cage at the same opening. The company did not maintain a light at this opening of the shaft. It had, however, directed an employé to carry a lantern when its employés, the night shift, were going into or coming out of the cage at this opening, and had arranged the windows of the engine room, which was some 50 or 60 feet away, so that light from that room would shine in the direction of this opening of the shaft. A fence had been constructed around a lot or space some 10 feet wide and 20 feet long, and the opening of the shaft was within this inclosure. This fence was not erected for the purposes of protecting the opening of the shaft, or as being in compliance with the statute, but for the purpose of inclosing a lot for the storage of hay and feed intended to be lowered into the mine. The company had constructed above the surface of the opening of the shaft an uninclosed framework of timbers, which supported a structure called the ‘tipple house,’ some 20 feet above the ground. These timbers, composing the framework on which the tipple house rested, were supplied with ‘slides and guides' for the cages, and the cages and coal brought out of the mine through the shaft could be hoisted to the tipple house. The day shift of workmen were accustomed to enter and leave the cages at the tipple house. Coal brought out of the mine was hoisted to the tipple house, and there distributed to the screens, cars, etc., but coal was not brought out of the mine except in the daytime. The appliances for raising and lowering the cages enabled the company to move the cages from the tipple house to the bottom of the shaft. On the occasion in question the husband of appellee and the other workmen composing the night shift, after the hours of work for the night were over, were hoisted from the bottom of the shaft in a cage to the opening of the shaft at the surface of the ground. It was yet dark, and there was no one there with a lantern. In endeavoring to alight, the husband of appellee fell into the shaft, and was precipitated to the bottom of the mine, a distance of 600 or 700 feet, and instantly killed. These are, in substance, the facts necessary to be known in order to determine whether the court erred in refusing the motion of the defendant company to direct a verdict in its favor.

The statute relied upon by the appellee are sections 6, 8, and 14 of chapter 93. There sections read as follows:

‘Sec. 6. * * * A sufficient light shall be furnished at the top and bottom of the shaft to insure as far as possible the safety of persons getting on or off the cage.’

‘Sec. 8. * * * The top of each and every shaft and the entrance to each and every intermediate working vein shall be securely fenced by gates, properly protecting such shaft and the entrance thereto.’

‘Sec. 14. For any injury to person or property occasioned by any willful violations of this act or willful failure to comply with any of its provisions, a right of action shall accrue,’ etc.

The contention of the appellant company is (1) that the top of the shaft of its mine is not the opening of the shaft at the surface of the ground, but that the landing at the tipple house, where the cages and the coal are hoisted, is the top of the shaft to which the provisions of the statute apply; and (2) that, even if the opening of the shaft at the surface of the ground should be deemed the top of the shaft, there is an entire absence of proof of willful failure to comply with the requirements of the statute; and (3) that the evidence did not tend to establish that the proximate cause of the death of the deceased was the alleged omission of the company to comply with the requirements of the statute.

If the ‘top of the shaft’ of a coal mine is not the opening of the shaft at the surface of the ground, it is for the reason that the construction of the structure around about such opening of the shaft, and the manner and mode of operating, entering, and departing from the cages, and delivery of coal from the shaft, have established the actual top of the shaft at...