Tradewater Coal Co. v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 26 February 1903
• Parties: TRADEWATER COAL CO. v. JOHNSON.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

72 S.W. 274

TRADEWATER COAL CO. v. JOHNSON.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

February 26, 1903

Appeal from circuit court, Union county.

"Not to be officially reported."

Action by J. C. Johnson against the Tradewater Coal Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

H. X Morton, for appellant.

Drury &amp Drury, B. F. Saunders, and H. N. Davis, for appellee.

PAYNTER J.

Whilst in the employ of the appellant as laborer, the appellee was injured in a coal mine--had his leg broken and crushed. He was inexperienced, having worked only about two hours in the mine when the accident occurred. One Bryant was in the employ of the appellant--was what is commonly called a "machineman." Appellee was his helper--commonly called his "hostler." The mines are divided into rooms. The machineman and his hostler enter a room. The machineman so manipulates the machine as to make an excavation under the vein of coal for a distance of five or six feet. While thus boring under the vein, dirt is brought out, and it is the business of the hostler to remove it. After this is done, the shooter or driller enters the room and drills holes into the face of the coal near the top of the vein to the depth of the undermining or excavation which has been made by the machineman. The driller then places an explosive in the holes made by him, and touches it off, which results in breaking the coal from the vein between the holes and undermining. This is followed by the loaders, whose business it is to remove any loose coal hanging to the vein resulting from the shots. In the room where the injury took place, the driller had bored the holes 18 inches further back than the undermining had been extended, so, when the explosion took place, some coal was left hanging on it, partially detached from the vein. The loaders made this discovery, and, when Bryant entered the mine, they told him of its condition. Notwithstanding this, he proceeded to undermine it, and, after working on it awhile, the loose coal gave way, causing the injury stated. The appellee had no knowledge of coal mining, and his inexperience did not lead him to discover the condition of the coal. The uncontradicted testimony is that the room was in an unsafe and dangerous condition--such a condition that Bryant should not have proceeded with the work until the loose coal was removed. There being no conflict in the evidence, and it being of such a...