Minkkinen v. Quincy Mining Co.

135 N.W. 449, 169 Mich. 279, 1912 Mich. LEXIS 731
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 29, 1912
DocketDocket No. 80
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 135 N.W. 449 (Minkkinen v. Quincy Mining Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Minkkinen v. Quincy Mining Co., 135 N.W. 449, 169 Mich. 279, 1912 Mich. LEXIS 731 (Mich. 1912).

Opinion

Moore, C. J.

This is a personal injury case. The plaintiff was a trammer, working for defendant company, and was injured by some rock falling upon him while he was scratching down ore upon a soller at the foot of the stope, in order to fill his car. At the close of the testimony on the part of the plaintiff, and again at the close of all the testimony, the defendant moved for a directed verdict. These motions were overruled, and the case was submitted to the jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. Judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff. The case is brought here by writ of error. The accompanying cut will help to understand the situation.

The first sketch shows the stope with its hanging wall, its foot wall, the stulls in place to receive the ore as it is broken down, the platform called a soller, upon which the ore rests when it is let through the opening, shown in the second sketch, from which platform it is loaded upon the car standing upon the rails, shown in the first sketch and opposite the soller or platform. The stulls, the opening between them, and the platform shown in the second sketch are what the witnesses call a “mill.”

The record is to the effect that the vein is taken out between the foot wall and the hanging wall and the hanging wall which is left is a permanent roof, which is supposed to be and is usually kept reasonably safe by barring down any loose pieces of rock which may be loosened by blasting or otherwise. The hanging wall is not blasted. [281]*281The trammers do not attempt to tram it out. It is the custom for men, known as barmen, or for miners, to take down whatever is loose in the hanging wall. The work of stoping out a piece of ground may last for months.

Sketch of portion of stope on 59th level south of No. 7 shaft.

Miners must go up and down under the hanging wall from underneath which the copper rock has been blasted. Trammers must go up in the stope for the purpose of scraping down the rock to the soller or level to be shoveled [282]*282into the tram car. The trammers are not given tools to keep this hanging wall safe. They may be required to work under it for months. The evidence shows, also, as will appear more in detail later, that the shift boss also goes around and looks over the hanging to see that it is safe.

Counsel for defendant discuss the assignments of error under the heads of assumption of risk; contributory negligence of plaintiff as a matter of law; variance between the pleadings and proofs; error in denying a motion for new trial because of excessive verdict; errors in the translation of testimony, and other reasons not necessary to further state.

We will take up the last of these groups first. The bill of exceptions was signed November 9, 1910, and a writ of error taken out. The motion for a new trial was made February 1, 1911. This being the situation of the case, the judge very properly held the case was out of his court, and that he had no jurisdiction to dispose of the motion. We, of course, cannot review his action in that regard.

As to the variance between pleadings and proofs, we have searched the record in vain for anything to indicate that this question was presented to and passed upon by the trial judge. For that reason we decline to consider it.

It is claimed the plaintiff assumed the risk of the conditions as he found them, which resulted in his injury. It is also claimed that he learned what the conditions were, and that, knowing these conditions, his continuing to work was negligence which contributed to his injury, and that for each of these reasons the court should have directed a verdict in favor of defendant, counsel citing, in support of their contention, Petaja v. Mining Co., 106 Mich. 463 (64 N. W. 335, 66 N. W. 951, 32 L. R. A. 435, 58 Am. St. Rep. 505); Ritzema v. Brick Co., 152 Mich. 75 (115 N. W. 705); Lukovski v. Railroad Co., 164 Mich. 361 (129 N. W. 707), and many other cases. It becomes important to consider that part of the testimony [283]*283most favorable to plaintiff to decide whether there was a case to be submitted to the jury.

One of the witnesses testified:

“ On the day of the injuries to Nick, Nick and I were working together. We were tramming rock on the fifty-fourth level, tramming it out to No. 7 shaft. We had trammed out 15 cars during the day. We got those 15 cars from the drift and cutting out and from the stope also. Two cars I think we took from that stope. I am speaking now of the stope where Nick was afterwards hurt. We got two cars from that stope.
“Q. When did you get those cars ?
“A. I recollect it being in the forenoon, somewhere around 9 o’clock in the morning. Up to the time we got those cars, the shift boss had not come around and seen us that I know. While we were getting those cars from the stope, we heard rock fall from the hanging wall. We believed it came from the hanging in the stope. We were then shoveling dirt from the soller into the car. The soller is the place where the dirt is run down, and from there shoveled to the car. When we got through hauling those fifteen cars of rock out to the shaft, it was 4 o’clock. Then we put on our coats and we sat down, near the shaft. Captain Maunders came there then. I refer to the same shift boss I have spoken of before. I had a talk with Captain Maunders. The captain asked ‘How many cars have you filled?’ I told him 15 cars. He says that was too little. We told him that there was no more dirt, and that was a poor place. I might in some way give the conversation in English that I had with the captain. (Witness speaks English.) Captain say, ‘How many car you fill?’ I say, ‘ Fifteen cars.’ Captain say. ‘That’s small number.’ He say, ‘Go fill one more car.’ I say, ‘No more dirt, that place no good.’ He say, ‘That place all right. I see today. Go fill one more car or else go up.’ I told the captain about I see rock fall there. (Witness speaks English.) I see that place no good. I see small rock down on hanging.
"Q. Then what did the captain say ?
“A. He say, ‘That place bully good. I see today.’
“Q. And he told you to go ahead and go to work there or go up, did he ?
[284]*284liQ. After that, what did you men do then ?
“A. Then we went in.
“Q. Well, what stope did you go into ?
“A. The inside stope.
CCQ. Was that the one the captain referred to ?
"A. Yes; all of the rock then had been taken away from the soller already. We went then in the stope to get rock. Nick Minkkinen went with me. We went up from the soller approximately between 15 and 20 feet. I went on the south side of the mill, and Nick went on the north side. I might have been 10 feet or so away from Nick. We were working up there less than half an hour before Nick got hurt, not a full half hour. During that half hour, Nick and I shoveled dirt down into the soller. While we were working there the rock fell down from the hanging, and injured Nick. I saw it just then when it fell down. It was lots of it, and I can’t just state how many, but it was a big pile.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hughes v. Wayne Circuit Judge
214 N.W. 175 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1927)
Vrelenich v. Calumet & Hecla Mining Co.
154 N.W. 39 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1915)
Lesh v. Tamarack Mining Co.
152 N.W. 1021 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1915)
Minkkinen v. Quincy Mining Co.
137 N.W. 716 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1912)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
135 N.W. 449, 169 Mich. 279, 1912 Mich. LEXIS 731, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/minkkinen-v-quincy-mining-co-mich-1912.