UNSUSTAINED

Greymouth Evening Star, 29 September 1917, Page 3

UNSUSTAINED

OFFICIAL INQUIRY. », DOUBLE FATALITY AT BLACKBALL MINES. CHARGES AGAINST MANAGEMENT. v DECISION OF COURT. 1 V _ The decision of the Court of Inquiry J into causes leading to the death of John Tipler and Thomas .Abbott at the Blackball Coal Company's mine on the 30th July; was delivered as follows by Mr Warden Hutchison at Greymouth yesterday afternoon. The following is the full text of the finding:— ' This, is an official inquiry held pursuant to the provisions of the Coal Mines Amendment Act, 1914, upon the application of the Inspector of Mines, wherein it is alleged that the accident which happened in the Blackball' colliery on the 30th July last, resulting in the'deaths of

JWlii tipler and Ihomas Abbott, was indirectly caused bv the non-observance ot special rule 1 of tile Second Schedule, and of paragraph 45 of section 40 of the'Coal Mines Act, 1908 (now section 8, paragraph' (h) of the Amendment Act of 1914) on the part of John Watson, mine manager, and of Gavin Davidson, undei'viewer: contrary to special rules 11, 18 and 21 of the Schedule of the Coal Mines Act, 1908. The inquiry was held by mc, with MiArmstrong, mine manager, and Mr CopII persnrith, miner, at Blackball on the 21st I September last. I Rule lof the Second Schedule and | paragraph 45 of section 40 of the Coal I Mines Act, deal with the duties of the H manager of a coal mine. Special rules 11, fj 18 and 21 deal with the duties of an | underviewerp The evidence brought before us clearly I established the following facts : —The acI eident happened in section 17 of the mine, I and was the bursting through of a large 1 accumulation of water in No. 17 water--1 way, which had been dammed up tlfere 1 by a, fall. Some weeks before tne iicciB dent a section of the mine (No. .?) had taken fire, and had been sealed iff. Following upon this section 17 had been closed for work, and was not in actual

course of working for some time before and on the date of the accident. On Friday, 27th July, Tipler, who was a deputy, reported to Underviewer Davidson that there was a block in the water■f way in No. 17; and that water had accumulated behind it. In consequence of this, Davidson saw the manager (Watson) « and got his, instructions to clear the obstruction by shooting. The manner of doing so was left to Davidson's discvetion. Accordingly on the same Friday night, Davidson tired three shots in the timber legs, which were in front of the obstruction. He did not inspect directly the results of the shots. The smoke had not cleared away after waiting for three hours; but from the fact that the water at the wheel on the rope road above the obstruction had gone down six inches in one and a-half hours, he inferred that some of the accumulated water was getting away, though slowly. lie made and signed a report to this effect. Before coming away, he. blocked the crosscuts (two) leading from the rope road to' the water road. Davidson did not make any inspection on the following day (Satur-

day). He, says he was not on duty that day. On the Saturday, however, Tipler anil Shiftman Reeves entered this section of the mine. He had no instructions to do anything to the obstruction, and he did not get so far as the water road, because on hearing of the fatal accident to Graham which occurred that day in another part of the mine, both men turned back. But they had brought in with them explosives, which they left in a truck on the rope road. On the same Saturday night Tipler saw the manager, and was told by the latter not to interfere with the obstruction until he (the manager) had seen it- There is some evidence that on this Saturday night Tipler had expressed to Shiftman Reeves his intention of trying to remove tho block on Monday ; but this may have been before he was told by the manager not to interfere with it. On Sunday ...... n... _: 'i-;„l,„. na he

morning the manager saw tipler as ne was coming out of the mine, and in answer to a general question put to him bv the manager, said that "things" were all right in the mine. Cn the night of Sunday,, Tipler came to the Manager to ' tell him he purposed taking Abbott with him on his inspection on the following (Mondav) morning, instead of Nuttnll, the. approved man, Nuttall being ill. Tipler then told the manager that ho would be out bv 11 a.m. It was only when the Manager found on the afternoon of Mondav indications that the two men had not 'returned, that he. became noxious, and organised a search, which resulted in the finding of the bodies of Loth men in the waterway, Ihe obstructing mass had been swept away. The body of Tirilcr was found close to the site ot the obstruction, that of Abbott was at the bottom of the waterway entangled m timber and debris. Both had been drowned. , What happened on that Mondav mornincr can onlv ho surmised. That the men bad entered the waterway is clear; but whether they had (contrary to wsturctions) made some attempt to hasten the ,r P Ui„<r away of the water by the use ot a" pick, which was found in the way. and so brought on the catastropo, or whether 1 the waters of themselves burst away the obstruction at Tne moment the ;men were close bv, is merely conjecture. The question the Court 'has to determine is

whether the evidence shows. that the catastrophe was due to any breach or irregularity, in respect of tne statutory provisions cited by the Inspector of Mines, on the part of the manager or underviewer. As to the manager, the matter may be dismissed at once. The special rule and the section of the statute invoked as against him are general provisions for safeguarding the miner. The evidence shows no breach of any provisions for the safety of the miner on his part. No. 7 section of the mine was not in actual working, and the side-cuts to the waterway were fenced across. According to the evidence, the accumulation of .water was not any immediate source of danger. It might have been left for weeks without interferon*:, and allowed to drain itself off naturally. Yet we find that there was in the official mind a readiness to attempt the forcible removal of the obstructing mass. It does not appear, however, that the attempt of Davidson to shoot it away appreciably diminished the obstruction ; for Tipler climbed it on the Sunday. And the evidence is clear that Tipler was directed not to interfere with it. Now as to the underviewer, the specal rules cited iis against him have little or no application to' the hwU in evidence. I cannot understand upon what grounds they are brought in. Rule 11

makes it the underviewer's duty to see that a sufficient quantity of timber is daily supplied for the purpose of nviking roads and tramways safe. Rule 18 requires him "under direction of the Maifager" to see that all places not in actual course of working or extension are properlv fenced across. Paragraph 44 ot section"4o of the statute enacts tins provision. The rule appears to devolve the duty of seeing it carried out upon the underviewer when directed by the manager Rule 21 makes it the duty of tho underviewer to withdraw working men from unsafe places. Of these rules 11 and 21 obviously apply to the mine when in actual working use and have no relevancy to the facts in evidence in this inquiry, and 18 to places which have ceased to be worked. This is the only one which has a semblance ot application to the present inquiry: and as to this, tne evidence is that the crosscuts leading to the waterway were blocked. there was no mining work going on. there; and the onlv persons who would have been a* alt likelv to go there would be inspectors. It appears, on the general question of the safetv of the mine, that Davidson himself, ■i* before, stated, made no inspection mi th" Saturday at' all. His reason for not

doing so appears to be wholly satisiactory) for he admittedly had no actual knowledge of the effect of his, shooting on Friday night, but onlv the inferred knowledge ' from what, he saw at the wheel above; and it might reasonably be suggested that he .ought to have made a direct inspection on the Saturday to ascertain the effect of his shots on the obstruction. I cannot, however, causally connect this omission with the subsequent catastrophe. It appears to me that whether Davidson inspected or not on the Saturday, Tipler would have made the •inspection he did as part of his duty, on the Monday. That the obstruction was standing when he got to the waterway is apparent from the fact that his body was found in front of where it had stood; and the fact that Abbott accompanied him into the waterway appears to show that it was not considered to be dangerous by either of them. Most unfortunately' they were overwhelmed by the sudden escape of the pent-up volume of water, and the proximate cause of that escape cannot be told. Tu the case of Davidson, also. I cannot therefore find

that the fatal accident was even indirectly referable to any conduct of his. The result of the whole therefore is that the charges against the officials of the mine cannot, upon the evidence, be sustained. The assessors concur in this finding, but they wish to add that a better system of reporting inspections than appears to be observed in the Blackball mine is very desirable. Costs counsel for Watson and Davidson were £3 3s. Mr .1. Patterson appeared on behalf of the Inspector of Mines and Mr J. W. Hannan for Messrs Watson and Davidson.