Davis v. Trade Dollar Consol. Min. Co.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Idaho. The plaintiff in error was an experienced miner, engaged in the work of driving a tunnel in the mine of the defendant in error. The work was being continuously conducted by three shifts of men, working eight hours each. In each shift there were seven men, one of whom was the foreman or shift boss.
Read the full summary
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Idaho. The plaintiff in error was an experienced miner, engaged in the work of driving a tunnel in the mine of the defendant in error. The work was being continuously conducted by three shifts of men, working eight hours each. In each shift there were seven men, one of whom was the foreman or shift boss. Each shift operated two Burleigh drills, and bored from nine to seventeen holes in the face of the tunnel, which were charged with blasting powder and exploded, after which the shift retired to give place to the…
1Opinion of the CourtGilbert, Circuit Judge
We think the ruling of the trial court was clearly correct. Not only was the foreman of the shift of men who retired from the tunnel just before the shift to which the plaintiff in error belonged went in to work a fellow servant with all the members of that shift, within the doctrine of Mining Co. v. Whelan, 168 U. S. 86, 18 Sup. Ct. 40, 42 L. Ed. 390, and Railroad Co. v. Conroy, 175 U. S. 323, 20 Sup. Ct. 85, 44 L. Ed. 181, but we think the evidence upon which the plaintiff in error rested his case falls short of showing that the foreman of the preceding shift was negligent. The complaint…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Armour v. HahnSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- New England Railroad v. ConroySupreme Court of the United States · 1899
- Alaska Treadwell Gold Min. Co. v. WhelanSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- City of Minneapolis v. LundinCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1893
- Bunt v. Sierra Butte Gold Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1891
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Shaw v. New Year Gold Mines Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1904
- Rigsby v. Oil Well Supply Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1905
- Zeigenmeyer v. Goetz Lime & Cement Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1905
- Van Kirk v. ButlerNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1914
- Weeks v. ScharerCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1904
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.