DANGERS IN WORKING PLACE.

The operator of a drilling machine in a mine who was bound to make the particular place in which he worked safe, assumes the risk of injury from rock falling from the roof of the mine in the particular place in which he works and which he is required to keep safe.

Urich v. Utah Apex Mining Co. (Utah), 169 Pacific 263, p. 264.

VIOLATION OF RULE-FAILURE TO INSPECT.

A rule of a mine operator duly adopted and posted required the miners to inspect the roof after each blast as the work progressed and to cease working and report to the foreman whenever the roof became unsafe. A miner who violates the rule and fails to inspect the roof after a blast and continues to work in the place, assumes the risks incident thereto and can not recover for an injury resulting therefrom.

Elk Horn Mining Corp. v. Vahoose (Kentucky), 200 Southwestern 921, p. 923.

MINER ENGAGED IN CREATING WORKING PLACE.

A miner working in a mine and engaged in creating the place in which he works assumes the risk of any injury likely to result to him by reason of a fall of rock caused by his operations as one of the ordinary risks incident to the employment.

Barry v. Badger (Montana), 169 Pacific 34, p. 36.

KNOWLEDGE OF CONDITIONS-PRESUMPTION.

A driver of a coal car in a mine who had gone in and out of an entry three times daily for 11 days during a period of three months must be presumed to have knowledge of the width of an entry and must know that the entry was too narrow for him safely to alight from the side of the car between the car and the entry wall. Mayhan Jellico Coal Co. v. Bird (Kentucky), 201 Southwestern 306.

MINER'S KNOWLEDGE OF DANGEROUS METHODS.

A miner was injured while working in a coal mine by the explosion of a powder charge which he and his helper were placing in a hole prepared by them and while shoving the charge into the hole with a steel tamping bar. The miner was duly certified under the statute of Pennsylvania; had worked six years in the mine and over three years as a certified miner and had fired thousands of blasts. The coal vein on which he was working contained some hard rock called 'sulphur "; the miner was familiar with this formation and had heard that a blow of steel on "sulphur" would produce sparks but had not himself seen that effect. He was himself in charge of the

66

work and furnished his own tools and was the only kind of a person lawfully authorized to do the work he was doing. He had been accustomed to this labor for years and if sparks may be produced from damp rock from a blow by a steel tamper he had had every opportunity of learning the truth about the matter, larger than that of all except other miners. Knowledge of such dangers was part of his equipment for work and to ascertain and remember the fact required nothing but ordinary judgment and common observance. Lehigh & Wilkesbarre Coal Co. v. Sawickas, 247 Federal 432, p. 434.

KNOWLEDGE OF OPERATOR'S NEGLIGENCE.

A miner will be regarded as having assumed such risks as result from his employer's negligence if he had or ought to have obtained knowledge of such risk before his injury was received.

Peterson v. Otho Development & Power Co. (South Dakota), 166 Northwestern 147, p. 148.

NEGLIGENCE OF MINE OPERATOR-WHAT INCLUDED.

When referring to a mine operator's negligence in connection with the rules pertaining to assumption of risk there is included in the term "negligence" any and every failure of the mine operator to fulfill his obligation to provide for his miners' safety.

Peterson v. Otho Development & Power Co. (South Dakota), 166 Northwestern 147, p. 148.

DANGERS FROM UNEXPLODED SHOTS—MINER'S KNOWLEDGE.

A miner assisting in sinking a shaft and injured by an explosion of a charge of dynamite in a misfire hole resulting from the failure of a prior shift of miners to explode all the charges placed in the hole assumed the risk of the explosion where it appeared that he was an experienced miner; that the shaft in which he had been and was working was a very wet one, and that in such shafts there are more misfire holes than in dry shafts, and that in this particular shaft there was a greater per cent of misfire holes than he had ever known in other shafts; that he did not know of any shifts but that had left misfire holes; that he did not know the kind of fuse used in the misfire holes; but he did not consider the fuses used of the best quality, and so informed the superintendent; that he was advised that the former shift reported that there were two misfire holes, but the particular location of the misfire holes could not be given; that he made all possible effort to find the misfire holes but failed and concluded there were no such holes. Being fully advised as to the risks, it is immaterial whether he knew the causes and also immaterial as to whether those risks were brought about by negligence on the part of the mine

operator. It can not be said that because the miner concluded that there was no misfire hole that he did not comprehend the risk.

Peterson v. Otho Development & Power Co. (South Dakota), 166 Northwestern 147, p. 148.

RISKS NOT ASSUMED.

DANGERS RESULTING FROM OPERATOR'S NEGLIGENCE.

A miner assumes no risk from dangers resulting from the mine operator's negligence.

Peterson v. Otho Development & Power Co. (South Dakota), 166 Northwestern 147, p. 148.

An employee never assumes the risk of danger due to the employer's negligence.

Staggs v. Gotham Mining & Milling Co. (Mo. App.), 199 Southwestern 717, p. 719.

NEGLIGENCE OF SHIFT BOSS.

A miner working in a mine and injured by a fall of rock does not assume the risk or dangers incident to his working place, where the shift boss had the authority to direct the miner to work in the particular place and informed him that he had inspected the rock and that the place was safe.

Federal Mining & Smelting Co. v. Anderson, 247 Federal 472, p. 473.

DANGERS OUTSIDE OF WORKING PLACE.

The operator of a drilling machine in a mine does not assume the risk or dangers and consequent injury in parts of the mine other than at his particular place of work.

Urich v. Utah Apex Mining Co. (Utah), 169 Pacific 263, p. 264.

SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT.

MINER WAITING UNDER DIRECTIONS OF SUPERIOR.

A miner assisting a mine engineer in making measurement on and along the mine track was directed by the engineer to wait at a particular place on the track, until he made some measurements a short distance away. While so waiting, and through the carelessness of the mine foreman or boss, a loaded car against which the miner was standing or sitting was released, started down the incline, and injured the waiting miner. Under such circumstances the miner while wating at the command of the mine engineer was engaged in the line of his employment at the time of the accident.

Borderland Coal Co. v. Edwards (Kentucky), 199 Southwestern 792, p. 793.

PROXIMATE CAUSE OF INJURY.

PROXIMATE CAUSE DEFINED.

An act is the proximate cause of an event which in the natural order of things and under the particular circumstances surrounding it such an act would necessarily produce that event. The practical construction of proximate cause by a court is a cause from which a man of ordinary experience and sagacity could foresee that the result might probably ensue; but the law goes no further back than to find an active, efficient, and procuring cause of which the event under consideration is a natural consequence.

Corrigan v. Oklahoma Coal Co. (Oklahoma), 171 Pacific 47, p. 50.

QUESTION OF FACT.

A mine operator, by his foreman, directed a miner to hold an unguarded insulator attached to a live wire while other employees attached the wire to a pole some distance away. While in the act of attaching the wire, the employees by jerking it caused the miner's hand to come in contact with the live wire, causing the injury complained of. Whether or not the negligence of the mine operator in furnishing the miner an unguarded insulator without releasing the live wire was the proximate cause of the injury, was a question of fact to be determined by the jury.

Elk Horn Mining Corp. v. Pitts (Kentucky), 201 Southwestern 9, p. 10.

METHODS OF DETERMINING.

In determining what is the proximate cause of an injury it is proper to inquire and ascertain whether the injury is a natural and probable consequence of the negligent act; or, if it is such a consequence as under the surrounding circumstances of the case might and ought to have been foreseen by a reasonably prudent person in the exercise of ordinary care, as likely to result from the act complained of.

Loveless v. Cunard Mining Co. (Mo. App.), 201 Southwestern 375, p. 379.

NEGLIGENCE OF OPERATOR.

The negligence of a mine operator to render him liable for an injury to a miner must be the proximate cause of the injury, and a connection between the act or omission and the resulting injury must be shown. As a matter of pleading a complaint is insufficient if it fails to show a connection between the alleged negligence of the mine operator and the injury to the miner, or where the contrary

appears from the other allegations in the pleading. No particular form of allegation is necessary and, where the negligent act causing the injury is set out with the allegation that by reason of, by, through, or in consequence of such negligence the miner was injured, it is equivalent to an allegation that the operator's negligence caused the injury or that the injury was wholly caused thereby.

Corrigan v. Oklahoma Coal Co. (Oklahoma), 171 Pacific 47, p. 49.

NEGLIGENCE OF EMPLOYER-CARE EXERCISED BY EMPLOYEE.

In an action by an injured miner under the Indiana employer's liability act of 1911 to recover for injuries sustained during the course of his employment, he is entitled to recover if the jury determines: (1) that negligence on the part of the mine operator, or those for whose acts he is responsible, proximately contributed to the injury complained of; and (2) that the miner's conduct in the face of the hazard which resulted from such negligence was characterized by the exercise of due care for his own safety.

J. Woolley Coal Co. v. Tevault (Indiana), 118 Northeastern 921, p. 926.

NEGLIGENCE OF OPERATOR OR OF FELLOW SERVANT.

In an action by a miner for damages for injuries caused by a car loaded with coal running upon and against him the jury should be instructed as to the meaning of proximate cause and left to determine whether the proximate cause of the injury complained of was the negligence of the mine operator in insecurely propping the coal car on an incline, or whether it was the negligence of a fellow servant in brushing or stumbling against the prop, knocking it down and releasing the car.

Borderland Coal Co. v. Edwards (Kentucky), 199 Southwestern 792, p. 793.

NEGLIGENCE OF MINER-PLEADING.

The fact that an injured miner alleges in his complaint that his injuries were proximately caused by the negligence of the mine operator, yet if it appear from the facts pleaded that the negligence of the mine operator as alleged had no casual connection with the miner's injuries, or if the injuries were proximately caused by some other agency, or by the act of the injured miner himself, the complaint as a matter of pleading would not be sufficient.

Corrigan v. Oklahoma Coal Co. (Oklahoma), 171 Pacific 47, p. 49.

FAILURE TO FURNISH PROPS-MISTAKEN JUDGMENT OF MINER.

A coal mine operator may be liable for injuries to a miner caused by a fall of rock because of the failure of the operator to furnish