Vagaszki v. Consolidation Coal Co., Inc.
Citation | 225 F. 913 |
Decision Date | 16 August 1915 |
Docket Number | 280. |
Parties | VAGASZKI v. CONSOLIDATION COAL CO., Inc. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit) |
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
L. B Treadwell, of New York City (L. B. Treadwell, Roger Foster and R. W. Darling, all of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
Davies, Auerbach & Cornell, of New York City (Charles H. Tuttle, of New York City, Charles F. Uhl, Jr., of Somerset, Pa., and Martin A. Schenck, of New York City, of counsel), for defendant in error.
Before LACOMBE, COXE, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.
This action was brought to recover damages in the sum of $30,000 for the death, on August 25, 1913, of George Vagaszki. At the time of his death he was 29 years of age, and was employed as a miner in a bituminous coal mine belonging to the defendant, and located at Jenner, in Somerset county, state of Pennsylvania. His death occurred while he was at work in mine No. 119, butt heading No. 8, second right, and was caused by a mass of rock which became detached from the roof of the heading, which struck and crushed him. There was no one with him at the time, and no one witnessed what occurred. The action is brought by the widow. The Constitution of the state of Pennsylvania provides that in case of death from injuries the cause of action shall survive, and that no act of the General Assembly shall limit the amount to be recovered in such cases. An act passed in that state in 1855, still in force, provides that the persons entitled to recover damages for any injury causing death shall be the husband, widow, children, or parents of the deceased, and that the sum recovered shall go to them in the proportion they would take his or her personal estate in the case of intestacy, and that without liability to creditors; the law of Pennsylvania on the subject being similar in import and character to the law of New York in that regard.
The action is brought by the widow of the deceased for the benefit of herself and a son of the age of six years. The theory of the action is that it was the duty of the defendant to keep the heading in the mine in which the deceased was at work in a safe and secure condition, and to properly inspect the same, and to support the roof with sufficient timbers or other suitable means; that instead of performing its duty it negligently permitted the place to be and remain in an unsafe, dangerous, and insecure condition, although its condition might have been discovered and ascertained by a proper inspection thereof; and it is averred that there was no negligence or want of care on the part of the deceased contributing to his death. The case was submitted to the jury, and a verdict was returned in favor of the defendant.
The courts of the United States take judicial notice of the statutes and judicial opinions of any state in the Union without plea or proof. See Lamar v. Micou, 114 U.S. 218, 5 Sup.Ct. 857, 29 L.Ed. 94. This case is governed by the Bituminous Mining Act of Pennsylvania, passed in 1893 and re-enacted in 1911, with some minor changes. The act places the management of the inner workings of a bituminous coal mine in the hands of a certified mine foreman, whose qualifications are determined by the state. Neither he nor the assistants whom he appoints are agents of the mining company; and the company is not responsible for their acts, unless it has notice that an emergency of danger has arisen demanding immediate action, and that these officials are not discharging their duties with regard thereto. The mining company is also responsible if it has failed to comply with the orders of the mine foreman. The following provisions of the act are important in determining the question involved in this case:
Article 4, section 1, provides that:
'The mine foreman shall have full charge of all the inside workings and of the persons employed therein, in order that all the provisions of this act so far as they relate to his duties shall be complied with, and the regulations prescribed for each class of workmen under his charge carried out in the strictest manner possible.'
The section also gives the mine foreman authority to appoint assistants when the workings are so extensive that he is unable personally to carry out the requirements of the act.
Article 4, section 6, provides that:
Section 7 provides:
Article 25.-- Special Rules.
Duties of Miners.
General rules:
As this court is bound by the construction given to this act by the courts of Pennsylvania, we call attention to the decisions of the Supreme Court of that state for the purpose of showing that the mine foreman is the representative of the state and not of the mineowner, and that the latter, as already indicated, is not liable for injuries which result...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Faris v. Hope
... ... 757, 30 L.Ed. 825; Vegaszki v ... Coal Co., 225 F. 913, 141 C.C.A. 37 ... Section ... ...
-
Watts v. Vanderbilt
...assumes that we may take judicial notice of this proclamation, as we may of state statutes and judicial opinions. Vagaszki v. Consol. Coal Co., 225 F. 913, 915 (C. C. A. 2). But, if this assumption be accepted, the appellants' position is not made better, for reasons now to be Under the sta......
-
Atlantic Fruit Co. v. Red Cross Line
...we may take cognizance without plea or proof of the judicial opinions of any state in the Union is undoubted (Vagaszki v. Consolidation Coal Co., 225 F. 913, 141 C. C. A. 37), and a fortiori is this true of the opinions of United States courts. How far this notice of opinions permits the in......
-
Wiener v. Union Trust Co.
... ... very truly, ... Progressive ... Circuit, Inc., 'By James D. Barton, Secretary and ... Treasurer.' ... At the ... AEtna ... Indemnity Co. v. J. R. Crowe Coal & Mining Co., 154 F ... 545, 83 C.C.A. 431; Donohue v. Boston & Maine R ... Co., 209 F. 824, 126 C.C.A. 548; Vagaszki v ... Consolidation Coal Co., 225 F. 913, 141 C.C.A. 37; ... Howland v ... ...