صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

to perform the duties required by statute and renders him liable for any resulting damages.

Donk Bros. Coal & Coke Co. v. Lucas, 127 Ill. App. 61, p. 66.

Where a mine is so extensive that all the duties devolving upon the mine manager can not be discharged by one man, other persons may be designated as assistants to the mine manager who shall exercise these functions under the mine manager's instructions.

Morris v. O'Gara Coal Co., 181 Ill. App. 309, p. 316.

14. MINE MANAGERS AND EXAMINERS-DUTIES.

A mine examiner must perform the duties imposed upon him by the statute and he has no power to adjudicate the question of the safety of an entry or roadway at a particular place.

Davis v. Illinois Collieries Co., 232 Ill. 284, p. 289;

Olson v. Kelly Coal Co., 236 II. 502, p. 506;

Aetitus v. Spring Valley Coal Co., 246 Ill. 32, p. 42;

Wilkerson v. Willis Coal & Min. Co., 158 Ill. App. 620, p. 626.

A person authorized to act as a mine manager under the statute can also act as mine examiner.

Brennen v. Carterville Coal Co., 241 Ill. 610, p. 619.

A person holding a manager's certificate may serve as a mine manager; and if a qualified mine manager acts also as a mine examiner and holds a certificate of competency as such and marks the dangerous places himself, the object of the law is fully met.

People v. Kolb Coal Co., 151 Ill. App. 469, p. 472.

Section 21 makes it the duty of the mine examiner to examine the workings of the mine within twelve hours preceeding every working day in the mine; to carry a safety lamp properly equipped; to see that the air current is traveling properly; to measure the amount of air passing in the last cross cut or breakthrough; to inspect all places where men are required to pass or work; to observe whether there are any recent falls, dangerous roofs or accumulations of gas and to place conspicuous marks or signs in places where there are recent falls or dangerous roofs, and if there is an accumulation of gas, to place obstructions across the roadway, one of which must be outside the last open cross cut and it requires a daily record to be made and kept of the condition of the mine.

Havron v. Shoal Creek Coal Co., 184 Ill. App. 117, p. 121.

An indictment against a mine examiner for failure to properly mark a dangerous place in a mine is sufficient if it alleges that the mine examiner failed to mark the room or place as required; and it need not aver that he was "certificated"; but if the indictment avers that the mine examiner was "certificated," proof of such fact is not required, as the averment may be regarded as surplusage.

People v. Leiter, 186 Ill. App. 453, p. 457.

On account of the decisions of the Supreme Court construing the Mines and Miners' Act of 1899, the legislature enacted the amendatory statute of 1911 limiting the duty of the mine examiner to examinations of the underground workings of mines.

Rogers v. St. Louis-Carterville Coal Co., 254 III. 104, p. 108.

15. DELEGATION OF DUTIES-POWER TO EXEMPT FROM LIABILITY.

The object of the mining act is to protect, so far as legislative enactment may, the health of persons employed in the mines of the state while they are working in the mines. The principal measures prescribed for this purpose require the exercise of greater precaution and care on the part of the mine owner and operator for the safety of miners than was required by the common law. To say that the owner and operator may shift his liability to a person employed by him as an examiner or manager who holds a certificate of the State Mining Board is to lessen his responsibility and defeat in part the beneficent purposes of the statute. But to hold him liable for wilful violation of the act or a wilful failure to comply with its provisions on the part of his examiner or manager, is to give force and effect to the statute according to the intent of the law makers and to prolong the lives and promote the safety of the miners.

Henrietta Coal Co. v. Martin, 221 Ill. 460, p. 467.

A mine manager and mine examiner while in the performance of the duties prescribed by statute, are not fellow servants of a miner. The object of the statute is to require of the owner or operator of a mine the performance of those duties which the statute prescribes for the mine examiner and mine manager. The mine owner or operator as an individual, may himself act in either capacity if he possesses the necessary certificate otherwise he is required to perform such duties through the manager and through the examiner; and the employment of a mine examiner and mine manager duly certified, does not shift the responsibility from the mine operator and owner.

Henrietta Coal Co. v. Martin, 221 Ill. 460, p. 466.

The question whether the boss driver and vice principal, who at the time of an alleged injury, was acting as a motorman, was a fellow servant with the miner, or whether he sustained the relation of boss driver and vice principal is a question of fact to be determined by the jury, but when the boss driver assumes the duties of motorman and neglects to give proper warning or reasonable notice the failure of which would constitute negligence or a violation of the statute, his conduct becomes that of the mine operator and his negligence or failure to obey the statute in that regard is that of the mine operator. McGuire v. North Breese Coal & Min. Co., 179 Ill. App. 592, p. 594.

16. VICE PRINCIPAL-MANAGER AND EXAMINER.

A mine inspector, mine manager, and night pit boss stand in relation to miner working in the mine as the master or vice principal.

Consolidated Coal Co. v. Wombacher, 134 Ill. 57;
Westville Coal Co. v. Schwartz, 75 Ill. App. 468, p. 474.

The mine examiner and mine manager duly certified and employed by a mine owner or operator stand for him and are vice-principals and perform those duties which the owner or operator cannot delegate to others in such manner as to relieve himself of responsibility; and for any wilful violation of the statute by either the mine examiner or manager or for any wilful failure by either of them to observe its provisions, the mine owner and operator is liable. Donk Bros. Coal & Coke Co. v. Peton, 192 Ill. 41; Taylor Coal Co. v. Dawes, 220 Ill. 145;

Donk Bros. v. Stroff, 200 Ill. 483;

Kellyville Coal Co. v. Strine, 217 Ill. 516;

Davis v. Illinois Collieries Co., 232 Ill. 284, p. 289;

Olson v. Kelly Coal Co., 236 Ill. 502, p. 505;

Wilmington & Springfield Coal Co. v. Sloan, 225 Ill. 467, p. 469;
Mertens v. Southern Min. Co., 235 Ill. 540, p. 547;
Taylor Coal Co. v. Dawes, 122 Ill. App.. 389, p. 392;
Illinois Collieries Co. v. Davis, 137 Ill. App. 15, p. 19.

See Consolidated Coal Co. v. Fleischbein, 207 Ill. 593, p. 599;
Consolidated Coal Co. v. Gruber, 188 Ill. 584, p. 588;
Himrod Coal Co. v. Clingan, Ill. App. 568, p. 575.

An employee in a mine who is authorized to look after and care for the ventilation in his part of the mine and who was directed to fix a particular curtain for the purpose of controlling the ventilation is not a fellow servant of a miner injured because of the lack of proper ventilation, but is a vice principal of the mine operator with respect to the performance of the particular duties with which he was charged and for any negligence on his part the operator is liable.

Wilmington & Springfield Coal Co. v. Sloan, 225 Ill. App. 467, p. 648.

A person intrusted by a coal mine operator with the duty of caring for and repairing the ventilating apparatus and watching the air currents in the mine stands in the relation of vice principal to the mine operator and any notice to such person of the breaking down of any of the ventilating apparatus would be notice to the operator, and the operator would be liable for the wilful failure of such person or vice principal to perform the duties imposed upon him. Wilmington & Springfield Coal Co. v. Sloan, 127 Ill. App. 218, p. 220. See Sangamon Coal Min. Co. v. Wiggerhaus, 122 Ill. 279;

Odin Coal Co. v. Tadlock, 216 Ill. 624;

Taylor Coal Co. v. Dawes, 220 Ill. 145;

Rosan v. Big Muddy Coal & Iron Co., 128 Ill. App. 128, p. 131.

Under the act of 1899 a mine manager and mine examiner are vice principals of the owner and engaged in the performance of duties which the owner can not delegate to others in such manner as to relieve himself from responsibility. Wilmington Star Min. Co. v. Fulton, 205 U. S. 60, p. 72.

Under the statute of 1899 the mine examiner and mine manager are held to be vice principals of the mine owner and operator. In Pennsylvania a similar statute was held unconstitutional and it was held by the Supreme Court of that State that the mining boss or foreman is a fellow servant of the other employees of the same employer and when a mine owner or operator employs a competent boss or foreman to direct the operations in a mine, he has discharged the full measure of his duty and is not liable for an injury arising from the negligence of a foreman. The Supreme Court of West Virginia under a similar statute has followed the Pennsylvania court.

Henrietta Coal Co. v. Martin, 221 Ill. 460, p. 466.

See Durkin v. Kingston Coal Co., 171 Pa. 193;

Williams v. Thacker Coke & Coal Co., 44 W. Va. 599.

17. COMPETENCY OF MINE EXAMINER-EFFECT OF CERTIFICATE.

The certificate given by the State to a mine manager, mine examiner or hoisting engineer, is prima facie evidence of the competency of the holder thereof; but it does not relieve the operator from responsibility for any part of his conduct not involving his competency and not even for that if the operator knew for any reason he was in fact incompetent.

Donk Bros. Coal & Coke Co. v. Lucas, 127 Ill. App. 61, p. 63.
See Consolidated Coal Co. v. Seniger, 179 Ill., 370, p. 374;

Fulton v. Wilmington Star Min. Co., 133 Federal 193.

The question as to whether or not a mine examiner was actually qualified to make the examination of a mine is immaterial so long as he had no certificate of competency. No matter how much knowledge of mining operations a per

54915-19-Bull. 169-18

son may have, theoretically or practically or both, he can not be legally employed to make an examination until he has procured a certificate of competency.

People v. Leiter, 143 Ill. App. 350, p. 354.

18. MINE EXAMINER-RIGHT TO PROTECTION OF STATUTE.

Employment in a coal mine is a dangerous occupation and when a person accepts employment as a mine examiner he knows it is a dangerous position to fill as otherwise his employment would not be required. He must know all of the requirements of the statute as to the duties to be performed by him and when he accepts such employment he assumes all dangers incident thereto. He is not an operative miner, but he is the means selected by the legislature in the passage of the law for the protection of the operative miners. A mine examiner cannot recover in an action for damages against a mine operator for a failure to comply with the statutory requirements which are only applicable to operative miners, and a mine examiner does not come within the class entitled to protection under the provisions of the statutes.

Havron v. Shoal Creek Coal Co., 184 Ill. App. 117, p. 122.

19. LIABILITY AND NONLIABILITY OF OPERATOR-INSTANCES.

This statute is to be liberally construed but every accident occurring in a mine is not to be attributed necessarily to the wilful failure of a mine operator to comply with some provision of the act. A mine operator is not liable as for a wilful violation of the statute in failing to keep a commodious passageway at the bottom of the shaft where the injury complained of was caused by a mule, which on being struck by the driver, rushed forward and fell upon and injured the complaining miner, as in such case the failure to provide a commodious passageway around the landing had nothing to do with the injury complained of.

Carter v. Sangamon Coal Co., 162 Ill. App. 8, p. 10.

There can be no recovery in an action against a mine operator for a wilful violation of the statute for the death of an employee caused by a pipe falling while the employee was riding down a shaft in an open platform, where the mine operator had driven two shafts over 500 feet to the bottom of the third vein and had connected these at the bottom by a way intended as an air passage and where the mine owner cut through the vein of coal and took out the coal and cut a main entry from one shaft to the other, keeping the coal and earth and rock separate, but not raising the coal as a part of the operation of a coal mine, but in the work of preparing the plant to be operated as a coal mine, for the reason that the plant was not being operated as a coal mine but only work preparatory to such operation.

Hakanson v. La Salle County Carbon Coal Co., 168 Ill. App. 147, p. 150;
Swengel v. La Salle County Carbon Coal Co., 182 Ill. App. 623, p. 630.
See Moore v. Dering Coal Co., 242 Ill. 84;

Moore v. Dering Coal Co., 147 Ill. App. 95.

It is the duty of a mine operator to see that the shooting is so directed that a pillar of coal between rooms is left of sufficient thickness to be safe. A miner is not required by any rule or regulation or by any statute to keep himself advised of the exact location of the cut on the opposite side of a pillar and to make measurements to ascertain the thickness of the pillar. These all pertain to the duties of the mine manager and the mine examiner as representatives of the mine operator; and a mine operator is liable for injuries to a miner

caused by a shot blowing through from an adjoining room, as a result of the failure of the mine examiner and mine manager to discover and mark or otherwise report that the place was dangerous by reason of the thinness of the pillar.

Franci v. Tazewell Coal Co., 157 Ill. App. 457, p. 482.

A distinction is made between cases where a mine owner or operator has failed to do some specific thing required by the statute, and where the alleged dangerous condition relates to a matter not specifically prescribed by the statute. Where the statute has directed a fence to be built around the top of a shaft, or a light to be displayed, or roadways to be sprinkled, the operator can not say that he did a thing which he thought was a sufficient protection to the miners. The statute contains no directions as to how drop doors shall be built, or how a roadway shall be fitted for travel, except that the operator must guard against dangerous conditions. In such case, if the mine examiner made an examination as required by statute and in good faith decided that the conditions are safe and so reported, and the mine manager so believed, and if the conditions are those which prudent mine managers consider safe in their minds, then the mine operator can not be held liable for wilfully permitting dangerous conditions to exist.

Hamilton v. Spring Valley Coal Co., 149 Ill. App. 10, p. 19.

See Bisel v. Kerens-Donnewald Coal Co., 153 Ill. App. 8.

The requirements of this statute seek to protect the miner by compelling the mine owner to provide material "so that the workmen may at all times be able to properly secure said workings for their own safety." If the miners only used the timber, propped the roof for themselves and thus undertook to secure themselves against injury, then they would assume this risk. But where a driver in a coal mine had nothing to do with the roof, found it out of repair, of which the mine operator had notice through his vice principal and assumed to repair it, under such circumstances the statute requiring the oper ator to furnish timbers does not protect him against liability for injury to a driver where the operator had notice of the dangerous condition of the roof, and where it was no part of the duties of the driver, and where he had neither time nor opportunity to repair the roof.

Consolidated Coal Co. v. Bokamp, 181 Ill. 9, p. 20.

20. DUTY OF OPERATOR-MINER MAY ASSUME PERFORMANCE.

The miner has a right to rely upon the performance of the mine examiner's duty and the absence of a mark indicates that in the judgment of the mine examiner the roof is not dangerous.

Arkley v. Niblack, 272 Ill. 356, p. 362.

21. HOISTING ENGINEERS-DUTY TO EMPLOY-RIGHT TO DISCHARGE.

The law requires a mine operator to select his engineer from a certain class, but it does not make it obligatory upon an operator to employ a particular certified engineer or to retain him in his employment, and it is not a violation of the law for a mine operator to discharge a certified engineer if he is found to be incompetent.

Consolidated Coal Co. v. Seniger, 179 Ill. 370, p. 374.
See Staunton Coal Co. v. Bubb, 119 Ill. App. 278, p. 281.

Section 7 of the statute makes it obligatory upon the owner, agent or operator of a coal mine not to place in charge of any engine whereby men are lowered or hoisted into or out of a mine, any but experienced, competent and sober per

« السابقةمتابعة »