Western Coal & Mining Co. v. Garner

• Decision Date: 13 July 1908
• Citation: 112 S.W. 392,87 Ark. 190
• Parties: WESTERN COAL & MINING COMPANY v. GARNER
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

112 S.W. 392

87 Ark. 190

WESTERN COAL & MINING COMPANY v. GARNER

Supreme Court of Arkansas

July 13, 1908

Appeal from Logan Circuit Court; Jeptha H. Evans, Judge; reversed.

STATEMENT BY THE COURT.

These actions were brought by the appellees to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been received by them at the hands of the appellant by reason of a powder explosion in one of its mines at Denning, Arkansas, known as Mine No. 2. The averments of ownership of the mine, operation of its system of electric wires and currents in the mine and negligence of the appellant in the operation and maintenance of the system of electricity in said mine are the same in each of the complaints, and all of the causes were consolidated and tried together. Verdicts for each of the appellees were returned by the jury, aggregating $ 750.

The complaints, after alleging the ownership by appellant of the mine in which the explosion occurred, the operation by it of a system of electric wires therein, the employment of appellees, the discharge by them of their respective duties and the exercise of ordinary care by them, at the time of the accident, for their own protection, and the nature of the injuries received, charge negligence as follows:

That it allowed and permitted a large amount of powder to be stored in said entry under and near the said electric wires. That it allowed and permitted the insulation on said wires to become loose, peeled and skinned off, rotten and decayed so that when said wires came together they would form a short circuit and by reason of the electricity burn into and fall to the ground or bottom of said entry. That it allowed and permitted the said wires to become too loose, and that by reason of becoming too loose they were easily and readily caused to come in contact and form a short circuit as aforesaid. * * * That on the said 26th day of March, 1906, the said wires, by reason of said condition, did come in contact with each other and formed said short circuit, and one of said wires was burned in two and thereby caused to fall in and upon one of the kegs in which said powder was contained, thereby coming in contact with said powder with a spark of electricity from said wire, and thereby causing the powder to explode and produce the burns and injuries of plaintiff as herein complained of."

The answer of defendant specifically denied each allegation of the complaint, and, in addition, pleaded contributory negligence, assumed risk, and that plaintiffs, when injured were at a place where they had no right to be, and were not injured while in their lines of duty.

The evidence on behalf of appellees tended to prove that the injury to them was caused by the burning of electric wires over a can of powder around and about which appellees were gathered, that the wires were crossed, making a short circuit causing them to burn, part, and fall to the can of powder beneath, that the explosion was caused by the sparks from the burning electric wires igniting grains of powder that were about the can, or else the end of the wire charged with a current of electricity, coming in contact with the can burned a hole through same and thus ignited the powder. One of the witnesses for the appellees, describing the accident said: "I saw the wires burning in two. I saw the sparkling, and took it for that. I did not see the wires fall, but I saw it afterwards. I did not see it down till after the explosion. They were all right until this wire burned in two. The sparkling I saw was on the ground after the wire fell. I was sitting facing the west, and the wire was out to one side, and I heard this sparkling, and as I turned my eyes and saw this sparkling; then it went up. * * * I know the wire that was burned in two was the main current wire. * * * When the wire burned in two, I saw sparkles of fire. Then I heard a frying noise, like it was in a barrel. These frying noises lasted a few seconds. It was a very few minutes after the frying noise that the explosion took place." This witness further testified in part as follows:

"I know enough about electricity to tell what it takes to constitute a short circuit. I helped run the motor for 14 months. That gave me some knowledge of the nature of electricity. If a wire or anything would burn or fall on anything wet or damp, that would make a short circuit. A wire charged with electricity, if it comes on the ground, you can tell that it is a live wire by the sparkling and fire that it throws. Wire insulated like this would cause a short circuit if it came in contact with the wall, if the wall was damp and this wall was damp. The roof was sweating very bad, and if this wire was charged with 260 volts it would burn right in two and fall to the ground. * * * I do not know about how much voltage was on that day, but I have been on top and looked at the voltage register, and it showed 260. * * * I know if a cold wire and a hot one cross, if it was not insulated heavy enough, it would cause a short circuit. If the wire had been insulated heavy enough, it would not have short circuited. What I mean by insulation is a substance that keeps it from making ground connection."

Another witness for appellee testified in part as follows:

"I was right by the keg of powder when the explosion took place. I saw the keg of powder. I had been sitting on it. That was before the lights came on. The lights came on, and the explosion took place all in the same moment. I first noticed sparklings up towards the roof. They were kind of sparks of fire. The explosion took place at the same instant I saw this fire in the roof."

Another witness for appellee testified: "I was running the electric locomotive that hauls the coal. Had been operating it about four years. The dynamo is supposed to carry 250 volts. If a wire that is carrying a current of 250 volts is...