Simmons v. Lehigh Valley Coal Co.
| Decision Date | 21 April 1913 |
| Docket Number | 1 |
| Citation | 87 A. 568,240 Pa. 354 |
| Parties | Simmons v. Lehigh Valley Coal Co., Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued February 18, 1913
Appeal, No. 1, Jan. T., 1913, by defendant, from judgment of C.P. Schuylkill Co., Nov. T., 1906, No. 28, on verdict for plaintiff in case of William H. Simmons v. The Lehigh Valley Coal Company. Affirmed.
Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before BRUMM, J. See Reeder v. Lehigh Valley Coal Co., 231 Pa. 563 and Pauza v. Lehigh Valley Coal Co., 231 Pa. 577.
From the record it appeared that the Lehigh Valley Coal Company in August, 1904, installed in a tunnel used for transportation of coal and other material at its Primrose Colliery an electric haulage system. This tunnel was driven through the rock and was about two hundred feet long, ten feet wide and seven feet high. For a distance of from forty to fifty feet on the west or high side and near the middle of the tunnel, the tracks by reason of a curve in the tunnel were brought closer to the rib than at the ends of the tunnel. For the remaining distance on the high side, in either direction, there was room to permit persons to pass moving cars with safety. The passageway was well drained and the entire space between the rail and the rib or side of the tunnel on the west or high side, except at the point where the tracks came closer to the rib, was free from obstruction and dry. On the east side or low side of the tunnel there was a space between the side of the cars and the rib or side of the tunnel of more than two feet for the entire length of the tunnel. There was a drain along the east or low side of the tunnel through which the mine water was conducted to the sump. A trolley wire was suspended over the tracks by means of insulating brackets or mine bodies about four inches from the top or roof of the tunnel, and passed over the cars about one foot from the west side of the cars. From the time this electric haulage system was installed and up to and after the accident this tunnel was used daily as a passageway by one hundred and fifty men, on an average, and powder was carried daily through the tunnel.
About seven o'clock on the morning of September 16, 1905, the plaintiff, in company with a number of other employees, who received powder at the foot of the slope, in going to his place of work, met a loaded trip of five or six cars, standing temporarily near the mouth of the tunnel and ready for hoisting as soon as the work at the colliery commenced that morning. The men passed in on the high or west side of the tunnel and along the trip of cars, until they came to a point where the space between the cars and the rib or side of the tunnel narrowed and they could not proceed further. Some of the men turned and went back the way they had come, while others, carrying powder, undertook to pass between the cars and under the trolley wire which extended over the cars. While thus engaged one or more of the kegs of powder carried by the men was exploded and the plaintiff, with others, was severely burned.
Verdict for plaintiff for $9,579.50, and judgment thereon. Defendant appealed.
Errors assigned were various rulings on evidence and instructions and refusal to enter judgment for defendant n.o.v.
The elaborate opinions of Mr. Justice ELKIN in the cases above referred to in which the facts were the same as here relieves us from any extended discussion in the present case. We are all of the opinion that the judgment should be affirmed, and it is so ordered.
Daniel W. Kaercher, with him Samuel H. Kaercher and Frank W. Wheaton, for appellant.
A. D. Knittle, with him R. A. Freiler and A. C. Sherman, for appellee.
Before FELL, C.J., BROWN, MESTREZAT, STEWART and MOSCHZISKER, JJ.
This case requires but brief consideration. It arises out of the same facts as Reeder v. Lehigh Valley Coal Company, 231 Pa. 563, and Pauza v. Lehigh Valley Coal Company, 231 Pa. 577. The plaintiff in the present case was one of a number of employees of the defendant company who entered its mine on the morning of December 16, 1905, and was injured by the explosion of a keg of powder, carried by one James Smith, another employee, which came in contact with the electric haulage wire. The questions in the case on which the liability of the defendant turned were: (a) Did the defendant company provide a passageway for use of its employees...
To continue reading
Request your trial