Spring Valley Coal Co. v. Buzis

• Decision Date: 22 December 1904
• Citation: Spring Valley Coal Co. v. Buzis , 213 Ill. 341, 72 N.E. 1060 (Ill. 1904)
• Parties: SPRING VALLEY COAL CO. v. BUZIS.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

213 Ill. 341

72 N.E. 1060

SPRING VALLEY COAL CO.

v.BUZIS. ^*

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 22, 1904.

Error to Appellate Court, First District.

Action by Simon Buzis against the Spring Valley Coal Company for personal injuries.There was judgment by the Appellate Court affirming the judgment in plaintiff's favor, and defendant brings error.Affirmed.

Daniel Belasco and Collins & Abraham, for defendant in error.

A. R. Greenwood and Henry S. Robbins, for plaintiff in error.

BOGGS, J.

The plaintiff in error company in July, 1901, owned and operated a coal mine at Spring Valley.The defendant in error was then in the employ of the company in the capacity of a miner.The vein of coal that was being mined was about 500 feet below the surface of the ground, and the plaintiff in error maintained, and by means of a steam engine operated, two elevators or cages which it used for the purpose of lowering its workmen into and hoisting them out of its mine, and also for the purpose of hoisting coal.The opening of the shaft was inclosed within a building known as the ‘tower.’This tower was of the height of 75 feet, and it inclosed the engine room.The engineer controlled the movements of the cages from his station in the engine room, which was about 50 feet from the mouth of the shaft.He could not see the elevators or cages from his place in the engine room, but set his engine in motion to lower or raise the cages on signals made by a workman of the plaintiff in error company known as the ‘top cager,’ who was employed for that purpose, and was stationed at the top or mouth of the shaft.On the 8th day of July, 1901, the defendant in error and 10 other miners in the employ of the plaintiff in error company entered one of the elevators or cages to be conveyed down the shaft to the bottom of the mine.At a signal given by the top cager, the engineer put the machinery in motion to lower the cage, and the cage was let down with such rapidity that it struck the bottom of the shaft with great force and violence, and seriously injured the defendant in error, and also other of the workmen.The defendant in error, in an action on the case instituted in the superior court of Cook county, was awarded judgment in the sum of $2,500, and the Appellate Court for the First District affirmed the judgment on an appeal prosecuted by the company.This writ of error asks the reversal of these judgments.

It is first complained that the court erred in overruling the motion entered by the plaintiff in error company to direct a peremptory verdict in its favor.Two reasons are advanced in support of this position: First, that there was no evidence tending to show that the injury received by the defendant in error was the result of any negligence on the part of the plaintiff in error company; and, second, that the defendant in error, for a valuable consideration, executed, under his hand and seal, and delivered to the plaintiff in error, a release of any and all claim for damages because of or arising from the injuries received by him.

It was the duty of the engineer to exercise reasonable care to control the downward motion of the cage, to the end that it should convey the persons riding therein to the bottom of the shaft without injury.The evidence tended to show that he put the cage in rapid and dangerous motion, and that it moved with such speed as to strike the bottom of the shaft with great force and violence.The mere fact that an employé has been injured is not sufficient to establish that an employer was guilty of negligence, and may have no tendency to show that the injury was the result of negligence on the part of the employer, but the manner of and circumstances under which an injury was received may furnish proof of such negligence.The fact in the case at bar that the cage was allowed to descend with such great rapidity and force tended to show negligence on the part of the engineer in handling and operating the machinery.The court could not declare as a matter of law that the release operated as a bar to the right of the defendant in error to recover, for the reason there was evidence tending to show that the signature of the defendant in error thereto was obtained through fraud and circumvention.It was proven that the defendant in error was unable to read or clearly understand the English language.His tongue was Lithuanian, but he could speak a few words in English.In the interview which resulted in the execution of the paper purporting to be a release one Mr. Novak acted as interpreter.He died prior to the hearing.The purported release was dated July 17, 1901-about nine days after defendant in error received his injuries.He was then confined to his bed.The defendant in error, as interpreted, testified: ‘I remember when I made my mark on this paper (referring to the paper handed witness).It was three or four days after I was hurt.There were present a clerk, interpreter, and somebody else.They said that they would give $35 to pay...