CHAP. XVI. ACCIDENTS IN COLLIERIES. Ir is only necessary to read a few of the reports of the inspectors of mines to appreciate the importance of this subject. It has been stated by Mr. Dillwyn, M.P., that "the average of colliery accidents amounts to from 1,000 to 1,200 every year, a great majority of which are not connected with explosions, but with the falling of roofs, stones, and other causes which might be prevented to a certain extent by caution and good regulations." The causes pointed out by the inspectors are very various. "In many instances," says Mr. Higson, "accidents happen from the manager or overlooker not being sufficiently skilful in his occupation. At collieries under the best management, accidents and loss of life are comparatively trifling in proportion to the number of persons employed and the annual out-put of coal. But many workmen," he adds, "are indifferent as to the means of their own safety, reckless, or, I should perhaps say, careless, as to the safety of others, and disobedient in obeying the special rules." Another inspector, speaking of a Staffordshire district, says, "The vast number of shafts there do not present much above a dozen properly fitted up with guides and cages." Another says, "On examining into the accidents, I find that many of them have been occasioned by neglect and foolhardiness on the part of the sufferers: no doubt the great majority of accidents take place from want of consideration and forethought, both on the part of workmen and those engaged as overmen, in the varied and exciting details of underground management." Again, speaking of the death of an overman, he says, "I examined this colliery a day before this accident, and found one of the winding ropes a good deal worn. It had been cut and a clasp inserted. The rope broke at the clasp, and the overman lost his life by it." Again he says, "Underground workmen should be strongly impressed with the feeling that a mining occupation, even under the most favourable circumstances, is fraught with danger, and that each man's safety, in a great measure, depends upon himself. But men daily accustomed to danger are apt to neglect, or overlook, measures of a precautionary kind. In this district (that is, in a midland county) there is a want of skilful underground overmen.” From these reports it is manifest that a large proportion of accidents and deaths in mines occur to individuals whose own carelessness is the cause of their own injuries. Upon this class of accidents there is nothing further to say. But there are other accidents which are alleged to happen in consequence of the negligence, or ignorance, or rashness of the employer, or his agents or overmen, or of the fellowworkmen of the sufferers. The object of this chapter is to state the legal rules which fix and define the responsibility for such accidents. If the negligence or unskilfulness of the employer himself causes an injury to a person engaged in the business, the former is responsible for such consequences. It is also established, that a master is liable to third persons for any injury or damage done through the negligence or unskilfulness of a servant acting in his master's employ. The reason for this is, that every act which is done by a servant in the course of his duty is regarded as done by his master's orders, and, consequently, as the same as if it were the master's own act. In illustration of this extensive liability of the employer for injuries caused by his negligence and want of care, may be cited a case tried in March 1861, at York, before Mr. Justice Keating. The plaintiff was a collier, and the defendants were owners of a colliery near Sheffield. The plaintiff was working down an upcast air-shaft, which was being used by the defendants as a drawing shaft. On the day in question he entered the cage at the bottom of the airshaft for the purpose of being drawn up. He had ascended a few yards when a piece of bind stone becoming detached from the uncased side of the shaft fell upon the plaintiff's head and injured his skull. The ground upon which he based his claim against the owner was, that the air-shaft was not cased or lined throughout according to the Act 18 & 19 Vict. c. cviii., and also that the cage itself was defective, being without that safeguard called "a bonnet." It was suggested for the defence, that the plaintiff's head had by his own carelessness come in contact with one of the stays in the shaft, and some evidence was offered in confirmation of this defence, but the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff; damages 150l. It is clear, however, that if the jury had believed the defence set up, their verdict must have been for the defendants. For, although the stay might have been the cause of mischief in the absence of proper precaution in the ascent or descent, the plaintiff was bound to use all necessary care and precaution to avoid a danger which was obvious and avoidable, and if he did not do so he could have no legal claim against the owners. This case, however, is entitled to no greater weight than that of a nisi prius verdict.* The doctrine of the responsibility of the master for the acts of his servant was carried to a great length in the case of R. v. Stephens (35 Law J., Q. B. 251), which was an indictment for nuisance by injuring the navigation of the river Towey by throwing rubbish into it. The defendant was the owner of a colliery on the bank, and his men were competent to perform their duties, but nevertheless so stacked the rubbish that it caused the obstruction. The defendant was eighty years of age, did not personally superintend the works, and had given express orders to his workmen that the rubbish should not be thrown into the river. It was held that these facts formed no defence. The works were conducted for the defendant by his sons or some other agent, and for his benefit, and he must * See a late case in the Appendix. be considered to have given to his servants or agents all the authority that is incident to the carrying on the business. What they had done was within the scope of such authority, and the defendant was therefore liable. It is difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile this case with that of R. v. Handley, which is quoted in the chapter on the inspection of mines. There is, however, this difference, that in the case of the nuisance there was no reason to believe that the defendant was actually ignorant of the obstruction ; whereas in the case under the Mines Inspection Act, it was probable that the defendant had no knowledge of the illegal act. A plaintiff cannot recover damages, if, but for his own negligence, the accident would not have happened, though there was negligence on the part of the defendant. For the plaintiff cannot complain of an injury which his own negligence and want of care has contributed to bring upon him.* If a rule established for securing the safety of workmen in a dangerous employment is habitually violated, to the knowledge of the workman himself, the latter has no ground to recover damages from the employer for injuries sustained from the nonobservance of the rule. But every master who employs servants or workmen to work upon his land or premises, is bound to take all reasonable precautions for their safety. If hidden and secret dangers exist upon his premises, * Martin v. Great Northern Railway Co., 16 C. B. 192. |