Jones v. Florence Mining Co.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Milwaukee County. The case is stated in the opinion. argued, among other things, that the work for which the plaintiff was first employed did not require his assuming any risk from the falling of pieces from the roof of the mine, and it cannot be claimed that the accident occurred from the ordinary risks that he took upon himself when he entered the employment of the company.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Milwaukee County. The case is stated in the opinion. argued, among other things, that the work for which the plaintiff was first employed did not require his assuming any risk from the falling of pieces from the roof of the mine, and it cannot be claimed that the accident occurred from the ordinary risks that he took upon himself when he entered the employment of the company. He was ordered out of the line of his duty, and not warned of the dangers to which he would be exposed in the mine, notwithstanding that the pit boss, -who ordered him into the mine, was…
1Opinion of the CourtTatlok, J.
The appellant, a minor, brought this action to recover damages for an injury which he sustained while in the employ of the respondent company.
The uncontroverted facts in the case are as follows: The appellant was at the time of the accident, according to his testimony, less than fifteen years old. He had been em*272ployed three weeks before by the company to work above ground, carrying the drills and other tools from the mouth of the mine then being worked by the company to the blacksmith shop for repairs, and bringing them back to the mouth of the mine. He had been so employed for about three…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Coombs v. New Bedford Cordage Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
- Sullivan v. India Manufacturing Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1873
- Railroad Company v. FortSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- Cook v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1885
- Hill v. GustIndiana Supreme Court · 1876
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by45 opinions
- Davis v. RailwaySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1890
- Nadau v. White River Lumber Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1890
- Howard v. Beldenville Lumber Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1906
- Ingerman v. MooreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Verdelli v. Gray's Harbor Commercial Co.California Supreme Court · 1897
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.