Hood v. Connell Anthracite Mining Co.

Citations

• 231 Pa. 647
• 81 A. 56
• 1911 Pa. LEXIS 904

Syllabus

<p>Mines and mining — Anthracite mining — Acts of June 2, 1891, P. L. 176, and May 15, 1898, P. L. 52 — Mine foreman — Superintendent— Foreman acting in dual capacity.</p> <p>1. The Act of June 2, 1891, P. L. 176, regulating mining operations in the anthracite field, and the Act of May 15, 1893, P. L. 52, relating to bituminous mines, in so far as they relate to the duties of a mine foreman are practically the same. Protection to the health and lives of those employed in mining operations is the primary purpose of both statutes.</p> <p>2. The character of the duties of a mine foreman is not necessarily changed because he may hire or discharge men working under him, or suggest where and in what capacity the men shall work, or how the entries shall be driven, or the mine be developed.</p> <p>3. Where a mine foreman does not have the exclusive charge of the interior workings, as a mine foreman, but acts as superintendent of the mine without reference to his duties as mine foreman, and he is negligent while acting in the latter capacity, the owner of the mine may be held liable for the consequences of such negligence. If the evidence is conflicting as to whether a person acts in the dual capacity of mine foreman and superintendent, the question as to the capacity in which he acts is for the jury.</p>