Waselinko v. Volpe Coal Co.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Kenworthey, J.,
Tbe appeal in this workmen’s compensation case turns primarily on tbe meaning of tbe word ‘cut’ in Article XII, Rule 55 of tbe Anthracite Mine Law of June 2, 1891, P. L. 176, 52 P’S §294, which provides:
“No person or persons working in any coal mine or colliery shall cut any props or timbers while the same are in position to support the roof or sides.”
Appellant, with a sledge hammer, knocked down a standing prop in defendant’s mine in order to make it possible to move ¡the pan line. The prop was in position to support the roof of the mine although there was some…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Gima v. Hudson Coal Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
- Paul Gima v. the Hudson Coal Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
- Kozak v. Joseph Reilly Coal Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
3Cited by2 opinions
- Kolonik v. Hudson Coal Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1947
- Skiba v. Nick Calvitti Coal Co. (Et Al.)Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1943