Wahlquist v. Maple Grove Coal & Mining Company

• Decision Date: 13 February 1902
• Citation: 89 N.W. 98,116 Iowa 720
• Parties: JOHN WAHLQUIST, Appellant v. MAPLE GROVE COAL & MINING COMPANY
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

89 N.W. 98

116 Iowa 720

JOHN WAHLQUIST, Appellant v. MAPLE GROVE COAL & MINING COMPANY

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

February 13, 1902

Appeal from Polk District Court.--HON. C. P. HOLMES, Judge.

ACTION to recover for personal injuries received by plaintiff, while working as an employe in defendant's mine. At the close of the evidence for plaintiff, the court, on motion, directed a verdict for defendant. From the judgment on such verdict plaintiff appeals.

Reversed.

Brennan & Brennan for appellant.

Phillips Ryan & Ryan for appellant.

OPINION

MCCLAIN, J.

At the time of the injury plaintiff was engaged as laborer in assisting to prepare an entry in defendant's coal mine for the purpose of laying a track therein. One Lindblom was the pit boss in charge of the work and at his direction plaintiff stood upon a car, and engaged in picking a hole in the side of the entry near the roof, into which a cross timber was to be inserted for the support of the roof. While so employed a portion of the roof fell causing the injuries of which plaintiff complains. There was evidence tending to show that Lindblom had been told the roof was cracking, and thereupon proceeded to have the men put in timbers to support it; that in such case the proper course would have been to use temporary props along the middle of the entry to hold up the roof, before attempting to cut holes for the cross-timbers; that Lindblom directed plaintiff to go to work at this place, which was thus dangerous, without advising him of the condition of the roof, but, on the contrary, with the assurance that there was no danger; and that plaintiff had no knowledge of the condition of the roof. The fault of Lindblom, if any, for which defendant is to be held liable, was not in putting plaintiff at work in a dangerous place. The business of mining is in itself hazardous, and the propping of a roof which has commenced to crack, and thus given signs that it may soon fall if not supported, is no doubt peculiarly so; but if it is work which is proper and necessary in the prosecution of the business of mining, in which an employe is voluntarily engaged, he cannot complain if he is injured by such danger. The doctrine that the employer must furnish the employe a safe place to work does not apply to a case where an employe is called upon with knowledge to do work which is inherently hazardous, such as repairing defects, or the like. The employe cannot recover for injuries received by reason of the very defect which he is employed to repair. Petaja v. Mining Co., 106 Mich. 463 (64 N.W. 335, 66 N.W. 951, 32 L. R. A. 435, 58 Am. St. Rep. 505); Broderick v. Railway Co., 74 Minn. 163 (77 N.W. 28); Saxton v. Telephone Exchange Co., 81 Minn. 314 (84 N.W. 109). The fault here, if any, was in not temporarily propping this dangerous roof until the permanent cross-timbers had been put in place. It is said, however, for defendant, that plaintiff knew that this precaution had not been taken, and therefore assumed the risk. This would no doubt be true if he had had the same knowledge...