Thomas v. Department of Mines

West Virginia Court of Claims

Thomas v. Department of Mines

8 Ct. Cl. 54

CourtWest Virginia Court of Claims

DecidedDecember 8, 1969

DocketNo. D-164; No. D-168; No. D-169; No. D-170

StatusPublished

This text of 8 Ct. Cl. 54 (Thomas v. Department of Mines) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering West Virginia Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Thomas v. Department of Mines, 8 Ct. Cl. 54 (W. Va. Super. Ct. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

JONES, JUDGE:

Each of the claimants appeared at a hearing at the Federal Building in Fairmont on December 5, 6 and 7, 1968, at the [55]*55request of the respondent, and gave testimony, relating to the Farmington Mine Disaster. Their claims 'are for lost wages, travel and other expenses incurred by reason of their attendance at the hearings. Their respective claims are in the following amounts: Dan Thomas, Sr. — $119.22; Hershel H. Mullenax — $120.20; Layman M. Hall — $137.17; and Alfred H. Christner — $99.00. The claims were submitted on the records, and have been consolidated for the purpose of this opinion.

The respondent admits that it requested the appearance of the claimants as witnesses at the hearings, but 'answers that it has no authority to reimburse these claimants for the loss of earnings and expenses incurred by them. No legal responsibility upon the respondent is shown by the claimants, and the Court is unable to find any authority which would support the payment of these claims.

It goes without saying that the claimants have performed a meritorious service for their fellow workers, their industry and the State of West Virginia, by cooperating with the Department of Mines in its endeavor to determine the cause of a tragic mining accident and to prevent such disasters in the future. However, the Court of Claims Act does not contemplate the invocation of the State’s conscience without a showing of legal responsibility. There being no legal basis for recovery, the Court must, and does hereby, disallow each of said claims.

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

JONES, JUDGE:

Each of the claimants appeared at a hearing at the Federal Building in Fairmont on December 5, 6 and 7, 1968, at the [55]*55request of the respondent, and gave testimony, relating to the Farmington Mine Disaster. Their claims 'are for lost wages, travel and other expenses incurred by reason of their attendance at the hearings. Their respective claims are in the following amounts: Dan Thomas, Sr. — $119.22; Hershel H. Mullenax — $120.20; Layman M. Hall — $137.17; and Alfred H. Christner — $99.00. The claims were submitted on the records, and have been consolidated for the purpose of this opinion.

The respondent admits that it requested the appearance of the claimants as witnesses at the hearings, but 'answers that it has no authority to reimburse these claimants for the loss of earnings and expenses incurred by them. No legal responsibility upon the respondent is shown by the claimants, and the Court is unable to find any authority which would support the payment of these claims.

It goes without saying that the claimants have performed a meritorious service for their fellow workers, their industry and the State of West Virginia, by cooperating with the Department of Mines in its endeavor to determine the cause of a tragic mining accident and to prevent such disasters in the future. However, the Court of Claims Act does not contemplate the invocation of the State’s conscience without a showing of legal responsibility. There being no legal basis for recovery, the Court must, and does hereby, disallow each of said claims.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 Ct. Cl. 54, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-department-of-mines-wvctcl-1969.