Pugh v. Oregon Improvement Co.

44 P. 547, 14 Wash. 331, 1896 Wash. LEXIS 370
CourtWashington Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 26, 1896
DocketNo. 2087
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 44 P. 547 (Pugh v. Oregon Improvement Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Washington Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pugh v. Oregon Improvement Co., 44 P. 547, 14 Wash. 331, 1896 Wash. LEXIS 370 (Wash. 1896).

Opinions

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Scott, J.

This, action was brought to recover damages for the death of John T. Pugh, which occurred in an accident at the Franklin mine, owned by the Oregon Improvement Company, on the 24th of August, 1894, by which accident Pugh and thirty-six other miners lost their lives. It is alleged that the defendants negligently allowed a fire to break out in the mine and afterwards negligently shut off the ventilation, whereby the deceased was suffocated. A verdict [332]*332and judgment were rendered for the plaintiffs in the sum of $4,000.00, whereupon this appeal was taken upon two grounds: The first being that there was no evidence of negligence upon the part of the defendants; and the second, that, if there was, the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence. Preliminary to a consideration of the facts, a contention of the plaintiffs that these defenses were so inconsistent that they cannot both stand, and that the plea of contributory negligence was a confession of negligence upon the part of the defendants, will be disposed of with the statement that this court has lately taken occasion to examine the question of inconsistent defenses at length in the case of Seattle National Bank v. Carter, 13 Wash. 281 (43 Pac. 331); see, also, Corbitt v. Harrington, ante, p. 197; and, under the conclusion we there arrived at, the defendants had a right to deny the matters upon which the claim of negligence was based or that the same constituted negligence, and also plead further, in case the contrary should be established, that the deceased was chargeable with contributory negligence. There is no element of bad faith in such defenses certainly as applied to the facts of this case, and they were both permissible.'

There was nothing to show any negligence upon the part of the defendants, so far as the origin of the fire was concerned, nor did the plaintiffs rely much upon such a claim. Their main contention was based upon the alleged negligence of stopping the fan used for ventilating the mine. Said mine consists of seven levels, varying from 300 to 350 feet apart. The main slope, starting from the top, reaches down six levels, and another shaft connects the sixth and seventh levels. The mine, at the time, was provided with four separate shafts; the main slope, by which cars [333]*333were raised and lowered and men could ascend and descend; the air course, at the top of which the fan was located, which was also provided with steps for ingress and egress; the easterly slope, or Green River slope, as it is sometimes called, the mouth of which is near Green River, and the pipe tunnel, also near the Green River slope, by which steam was taken from the boilers at Green River and the pump lines were carried, making four separate means by which escape could be had from the mine.

On the 24th of August coal was being mined from the fifth, six and seventh levels, nearly all of the work being done on the sixth level and north from the main slope. This part of the workings was called the sixth level north, or sixth north. There had been a fire on the fifth level near the main slope, and heavy partitions of masonry had been put across completely cutting it off from the main slope, while back beyond the fire other partitions had been erected, thus enclosing the fire between masonry walls, while still back beyond on the fifth level a connection had been made with the sixth level, by means of which coal was mined on the fifth level and put down through chutes to the sixth level. This portion of the mine was ventilated by means of the fan at the top of the air course. The fan was of the variety known as suction, and drew the air up through the air course, the current going down the main slope, then, being deflected off on the sixth level along the gangway, went as far as the gangway was driven, then it was turned up into the rooms where the men were working, down to the return air course entirely through the sixth level, up into the fifth level, down to the sixth level again to the return air course, and then out of the air course by way of the fan, which was situated on a hill about 350 feet above the [334]*334entrance to the main slope. As the air in the mine is of nearly constant temperature and the atmosphere outside varies, if the fan were not running, the current of air through the mine would vary according as the temperature outside was hotter or colder than the air in the mine. In case the air in the mine was the warmest, the column of air in the air course being 350 feet higher than the cold air coming down the slope, would raise of its own accord and the current of air would be down the main slope, through the workings and out through the air course. If, on the other hand, the temperature outside was much higher than that in the mine, the air current would reverse and would go down the air course, around through the workings and out at the main slope. At the time of the accident the outside air was much warmer than that in the mine.

The main slope, as well as the air course, are not driven in the coal vein. On account of the danger from fire, and for other reasons, they are in a vein about 153 feet from the coal vein in what is known as the dirt vein. Both the dirt vein and the coal vein were inclined at an angle of from 30 to 45 degrees. At the foot of the air course a connection was made with the sixth level by driving a tunnel from the dirt vein to the coal vein through the 153 feet of intervening strata, consisting mostly of rock, and this tunnel was known as the rock tunnel; and a door was constructed where it joined the coal vein which was known as the rock tunnel door. The method of mining the coal is as follows: A gangway about eight feet high and eight feet wide is driven along on the coal vein, with a gradual ascent from the main slope to permit the drainage of water. After the gangway is driven back a suitable distance from the main slope, [335]*335rooms are driven off from it at a distance of about 50 feet from centre to centre. The rooms are 30 feet wide in the clear, leaving a partition of 20 feet of solid coal betwreen each room. Said rooms are not driven 30 feet wide clear to the vein, hut the entrance to them is left about 8 feet wide, through which a manway is made for the convenience of the men, and a partition constructed in the chute connecting the room with the gangway, so that although the chute is filled with coal which has been loosened and started down ready to be loaded in the cars, the men can still ascend and descend through the manway and take timber and other supplies up. The crosscut and return air course is a passage way about 6 feet wide and 6 or 8 feet high, placed back 30 feet from the gangway or sixth level, and parallel with it. A narrow chute connects the room with the gangway. The 6th level, at the time of the fire, was driven north beyond breast 87, breasts on the sixth level being numbered north from the foot of the old slope, and as the breasts were 50 feet between centres, the men farthest north on the sixth level were not to exceed 1,200 feet north of chute 62, where the fire was first discovered.

Between 11:20 a. m. and 11:25 on said 24th of August, the fire was discovered in this chute about halfway between the gangway and the cross-cut. It appears that said chute, was dry and free from slack or debris, and it is claimed that it was impossible for the fire to have originated by spontaneous combustion. It is not known how it did originate. One of the boys engaged in driving mules and hauling coal along the gangway first discovered it, and immediately notified John Schneider thereof.

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

Related

People Ex Rel. Van De Kamp v. American Art Enterprises, Inc.
656 P.2d 1170 (California Supreme Court, 1983)
Day v. Kelly
146 P. 930 (Montana Supreme Court, 1915)
Edlefson v. Portland Ry., Light & Power Co.
136 P. 832 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1913)
Chickasha Light, Heat & Power Co. v. Bezdicheck
1912 OK 336 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Delaski v. Northwestern Improvement Co.
112 P. 341 (Washington Supreme Court, 1910)
Kimble v. Stackpole
110 P. 677 (Washington Supreme Court, 1910)
Hughes v. Oregon Improvement Co.
55 P. 119 (Washington Supreme Court, 1898)
Secor v. Oregon Improvement Co.
45 P. 654 (Washington Supreme Court, 1896)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
44 P. 547, 14 Wash. 331, 1896 Wash. LEXIS 370, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pugh-v-oregon-improvement-co-wash-1896.