Petaja v. Aurora Iron Min. Co.
| Decision Date | 27 September 1895 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | PETAJA v. AURORA IRON MIN. CO. |
Error to circuit court, Gogebic county; Norman W. Haire, Judge.
Action by Sehfanja Petaja, alias Sam Johnson, against the Aurora Iron Mining Company. Verdict was directed for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
Julius J. Patek (Clark & Pearl, of counsel), for appellant.
Charles E. Miller, for appellee.
Plaintiff a trammer in defendant's iron mine, was injured by the fall of ore from the roof of the room in which he was at work loading ore into a car. The work was conducted as follows The miners loosened and brought down the ore to the floor of the stope or room made by taking out the ore, which room was constantly being enlarged by the process. This ore was loaded upon cars, and removed by common laborers, called "trammers." As fast as the ore was removed, it was the practice to support the roof by timbers and posts set a few feet apart. These were called "sets," and were put in place by a force or gang of men who were called from place to place, as wanted, upon notice from the miners themselves, or through the shift boss or foreman, who had charge of the work of the mine. Above the shift boss was a captain, who had general supervision of the work in the mine. The posts were placed about eight feet apart, a set being eight feet square. The post, being two feet in diameter, was capped and braced, and covered with lagging to support the roof, which had a tendency to crumble. Sometimes large masses of ore would fall, as in this instance. The drift or vein was twelve sets wide, and the room in question was being mined across the vein, about forty feet of the vein being its length, while it would be about one hundred feet wide across the vein, when completed. The miners had taken out sufficient ore to make room for five sets into the vein and so much appears to have been properly timbered up. At the time of the accident they had mined a space in advance of the last set, which the plaintiff claims was wider than should have been taken without support. The testimony differs about its width, but there is evidence that it was not sufficiently cleaned out to permit of timbering at the time of the accident, and this does not seem to have been disputed. Some indications of danger were noticed by the trammers, who called the attention of the shift boss to it, but, after looking at it, he told them it was all right, and to "quit monkeying," and resume work, which they did. The accident occurred about 30 minutes later. The court directed a verdict for the defendant.
The claim of the plaintiff is that the master did not furnish a safe place to work. In our opinion, this place where the men were at work was an incident of mining. It was a result of the common work of the miner and the trammer, both of whose labor combined to make it. After the miner had loosened the ore, and the trammer had removed it, it was ready for the timber men, who followed up when notified, putting in sets which enabled the process of mining to be carried further. The undisputed evidence shows that the trammers and miners had not put the newly-opened space in condition for the timber men, and that the miners had not caused them to be notified that their services were required. If there can be said to have been culpable negligence, it was either in mining too large a space before cutting out the...
To continue reading
Request your trial