
    Alex Streathern, Plaintiff in Error, v. Superior Coal Company, Defendant in Error.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Macoupin county; the Hon. Frank W. Burton, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1917.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Opinion filed October 11, 1917.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Alex Streathern, plaintiff, against the Superior Coal Company, defendant, to recover damages for injuries sustained while employed in operating a machine to undercut coal in defendant’s mine, due to the fall of a stone in the slate strata above the coal in a room in the mine. From a judgment for defendant upon a directed verdict, plaintiff brings error.
    
      Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Trial, § 191
      
       — when direction of verdict is improper. In a personal injury action, it is proper to direct a verdict for defendant where there is no evidence from which, taken by itself, with all fair inference to be drawn from it, the jury could, without acting unreasonably, find that all the material allegations in the declaration had been proven, but if there is such quantum of proof the giving of such instruction is reversible error.
    2. Mines and minerals, § 84* — what constitutes wilful violation of Mine Employment Act. To constitute a wilful violation of the Mine Employment Act (J. & A. j[ 7475 et seq.), it is necessary that there should be a reckless disregard of its provisions, and the employer is liable not only when the dangerous conditions are known to him but also when, by the exercise of reasonable care, he could have discovered them.
    3. Mines and minerals, § 182* — when question for fury whether roof of mine was dangerous and mine examiner should have discovered condition. In an action by the operator of a coal undercutting machine to recover for damages for personal injuries sustained as the result of the falling of a “nigger-head” or rock from the slate strata projecting a short distance beyond and above the coal at which plaintiff was working, in the roof of the mine, held that it was a question for the jury whether the condition was actually dangerous and whether it should have been so marked, and also whether the mine examiner by the exercise of reasonable care could have discovered that the place was dangerous.
    A. W. Kerr and F. H. Kruger, for plaintiff in error.
    Edward 0. Kuotts, for defendant in error.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vole. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Presiding Justice Graves

delivered the opinion of the court.  