Superior & Pittsburg Copper Co. v. Tomich
Arizona Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the county of Cochise. Alfred C. Lockwood, Judge. STATEMENT OP PACTS BY THE COURT. The appellee was employed by the appellant in the underground workings of its mines in Cochise county. The appellee’s duties required him to load, push on a track, and unload ore ears. The place for the performance of such duties was on the 900-foot level of the mine.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the county of Cochise. Alfred C. Lockwood, Judge. STATEMENT OP PACTS BY THE COURT. The appellee was employed by the appellant in the underground workings of its mines in Cochise county. The appellee’s duties required him to load, push on a track, and unload ore ears. The place for the performance of such duties was on the 900-foot level of the mine. The track was laid through a drift from the point of loading the cars to a point of unloading the ores into a chute. The appellee was an experienced car man¿ accustomed to such work in other mines.…
1DissentRoss, J.
(Dissenting). — I endeavored to show in my dissenting opinion in Inspiration Consolidated Copper Co. v. Mendez, ante, p. 151, 166 Pac. 1183, that the new right of action contemplated by section 7, article 18, of the Constitution and for which the legislature was directed to provide, by proper legislation, is not and could not be an action for damages for personal injury according to the standards of the common law. The procedure adopted by the legislature to enforce the right is according to the common-law rules and standards of damages in case of tort, but the right of action itself finds no…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- New York Central Railroad Company v. WhiteSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Mountain Timber Company v. State of WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- State v. RowlandNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1917