OCR Text |
Show SUPREME COURT HAS REVERSED LOIR COURT i The Utah supreme court has just handed down a unanimous decision reversing re-versing the judgment of $2357.14 recovered re-covered February 16, 1916, In the district dis-trict court of Weber county by Thomas A. Whalen, as administrator of Pero Vucovich, deceased, against the Union Un-ion Pacific Coal company. Vucovich, a Montenegrean, was employed In the company's No. 10 mine at Rock Springs, Wyo. When the coal minors finished their day's work they boarded the small coal cars propelled by electricity elec-tricity and wore taken along one of the passage ways in the mine and, by tho main slope, to the surface of tho ground. On October 17, 1913, Vucovich Vuco-vich and tho other miners, having quit work for the day, rushed for the string of cars propelled by an electric engine to go out of tho mine on what Is called the man trip. The passage way was wide enough for two tracks. Tho trolley trol-ley pole extended to the trolley wire In the upper left hand side of the passage pass-age way. The celling was not more than seven feet high. Tho usual custom cus-tom of th miners was to climb over the sides of the small coal cars, but on this occasion Vucovich, wit,h his dinner bucket and coal minor's pick in his hands, stepped in between two of the small cars onto the coupler or bumper between the cars. He slipped and his face came in contact with the trolley wire resulting In his death from the electrical current. The attorneys for the administrator claimed that the company was negligent in that tho trolley trol-ley wire should have been guarded and insuated; that there should have been a watchman to warn the employes when the current was on the wire and to uniform them when it was safe to board the man trip; that it failed to turn off tho current from the trolley wire when the men were boarding the man trip, and that it failed to establish and enforce rules forbidding the employes to board the man trip before be-fore the current was turned off. The company denied it was negligent in any of these particulars and pleaded that the defendant assumed the risk and was guilty of contributory negligence. negli-gence. Court's Decision. In the opinion the supreme court holds that It Is undisputed from the evidence that the dangers and risks of the employment would be increased rather than diminished by housing and guarding the trolley wire. The opinion opin-ion further says, "tho evidence is all but conclusive that the company in tho case at bar discharged every duty imposed im-posed on it by law to use ordinary cars and diligence to furnish and equip the entry prior to and as the time of the happening of the accident with proper and suitable appliances and safeguards. safe-guards. Furthermore, the undisputed evidence tends to show that if the company com-pany had done what counsel for plaintiff plain-tiff contend It should have done place guards about the trolley wire It would have Increased rather than have diminished dimin-ished the dangers Incident to maintenance main-tenance of the wire." The court also says that the contention conten-tion of plaintiff's attorneys that the company failed o establish and enforce en-force rules forbidding its employes to board the man trips bofore the current cur-rent was turned off the trolley wire Is unavailing. "Tho evidence of the witnesses wit-nesses for both plaintiff and defendant evidence that is not in conflict in any particular shows that the company, com-pany, prior to and at the time of tho accident had a man, known as the "Safety First" man, stationed in the main entry near where the men in .No. 5 slope assembled, for tho purpose of boarding the man trip; that a part of his duties was to keep the men at the place where they had assembled until the man trip was made up and signal given by tho motorman in charge of tho train for tho men to board the cars; that on many occasions occa-sions prior to the accident the "Safety First" man was unable to control the men; that they persisted, notwithstanding notwith-standing tho protests made by him, in leaving the place where they were assembled as-sembled and In rushing to the man trip and boarding It as soon as it arrived and while the motor was being transferred trans-ferred from ono end of the string of empty cars to the other; that this state of condition of affairs existed at the time of the accident" "The deceased de-ceased also, of his own volition, boarded board-ed the man trip In a way recognized by the omployos of the company and, under the circumstances, presumably known to him, to bo extremely dangerous danger-ous and hazardous, Instead of boarding it In. tho usual and customary way which involved but little, if any, danger." dan-ger." In tho instructions to tho jury Judgo Harris, before whom the case was tried, stated that the law required a master maintaining electric wires carrying car-rying a high or dangerous quantity of eloctrlc energy to oxerclse the greatest care and prudence to prevent Injury to his employes. Tho supremo court holds that tho law on this point, as declared by the great weight of authority, author-ity, Is that the master's duty to his, employes em-ployes is performed by uring ordinary care for tholr safety. The judgment is reversed with direction's direc-tion's to tho lower court to grant a now trial and the coal company to recover its costs. The opinion is concurred In by Justices Frlck, McCarty, Thuiman and Gideon. Since tho accident In question, Wyoming Wy-oming has passed a Workmen's Compensation Com-pensation Act so that it is unlikely future fu-ture cases of this kind will be tried In court oither in Wyoming or any other state. r oo |