POCAHONTAS FUEL COMPANY, DIVISION OF CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
CECIL D. ANDRUS, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, RESPONDENT

4th Cir. | 1979-01-08
No. 77-2239
590 F.2d 95 United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (1979) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court held that the operator was properly charged with the knowledge of its preshift examiner, leading to a finding of unwarranted failure to comply with safety standards.


Facts & Procedural History

An inspector issued withdrawal orders for a damaged trailing cable and a shuttle car lacking ground protection at the appellant's mine. The Administra…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM:

On October 8, 1974, Inspector Donald C. Phillips entered the Maitland Mine operated by the appellant, Pocahontas Fuel Company, at Superior, West Virginia to conduct an official inspection. Discovering a trailing cable to a shuttle car damaged in four places to the extent that power conductors were exposed, Phillips issued a withdrawal order under the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act. 30 U.S.C. § 801 et seq. (1970). A second such order was issued by him after coming upon another shuttle car not provided with frame ground protection. He terminated both orders after the violative conditions were abated.

Appellant sought review by the Office of Hearings and Appeals, United States Department of the Interior. In a decision rendered on July 16, 1975, the Administrative Law Judge affirmed the two orders. He reported that appellant had permitted a condition to exist which could “constitute a significant and substantial contribution to the cause and effect of a mine safety or health hazard, and which was caused by the unwarrantable failure of the operator to comply with said mandatory standards.” 30 U.S.C. § 814(d)(1) (1970). On September 28, 1977, the Board of Mine Operations Appeals affirmed, concluding that the knowledge of a preshift examiner of these conditions was imputable to the operator. Pocahontas then took this appeal, arguing that it was error for the Board to rely on common-law principles of respondeat superior in charging the operator with the preshift examiner’s knowledge and thereon in holding that the operator had “unwarrantably failed” to comply with the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act, 30 U.S.C. § 814(d)(1) (1970).

We reject appellant’s contention and affirm on the basis of the Administrative Law Judge’s decision, as approved by the Board of Mine Operations Appeals, 8 I.B.M.A. 136 (1977).

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw