Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

203 Pa. 146

Hall v. Simpson

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 19, 1902

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1902-05-19

<p>Appeal, No. 135, Jau. T., 1902, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Fayette Co., March T., 1899, No. 38, refusing to take off nonsuit in case of Joseph Hall, Jr., Guardian of Eliza Ann Hall, a Minor Child of James Hall, Deceased, v. John D. Simpson, C. A. Van Horn, Daniel Livingston, William Livingston, and Elizabeth C. Hogg, trading as the Umpire Coal Company.</p> <p>Trespass to recover damages for death of plaintiff’s father. Before Kennedy, P. J., specially presiding.</p> <p>At the trial it appeared that on December 23, 1898, James Hall, plaintiff’s father, was killed by an explosion in defendant’s mine. The evidence showed that the ventilating fan in the mine was run from four o’clock in the morning until four o’clock in the afternoon. The miners went to work at seven o'clock in the morning. There was nothing in the testimony to show that the defendants had not provided proper ventilating machinery, and employed proper persons as mine inspector and mine foreman. The duties of mine foreman and mine inspector in relation to gas in mines are defined by the Act of May 15, 1893, P. L. 52, articles 5, 6, 7, 20, rules 6, 9, 10, 26.</p> <p>The court entered a compulsory nonsuit, which it subsequently refused to take off.</p> <p>Error assigned was refusal to take off nonsuit.</p>

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently January 1918

3 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1902-05-19

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam,

¶1The plaintiff’s testimony established two things only: the mere fact of the accident, and that the ventilating fans were *148not run day and night. The first was not sufficient to warrant a recovery by an employee, and the second did not give rise to an inference of negligence on the part of the defendants which caused the accident. Except in the abandoned rooms where the workmen were forbidden to go, gas was found in the mine at intervals only, when a fall occurred or a clay vein was struck. The failure to run the fans constantly was only one of a number of causes that might account for the presence of gas in the mine on the morning of the accident, and the constant running of them would not have been effective unless the course of the air currents within the mine had been properly directed. This was a matter committed by act of assembly to one over whom the defendants had no control, and for whose neglect they were not answerable. In the absence of affirmative proof of negligence, the nonsuit was properly granted.

¶2The judgment is affirmed.

/203/pa/146 · .json · Public domain