IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/bushst/v58y2016i4p501-531.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Oaks Colliery disaster of 1866: a case study in responsibility

Author

Listed:
  • Ben Harvey

Abstract

This article examines the 1866 Oaks Colliery explosion as a case study for the wider context of coal mining safety. Behaviour within the mine is explored, along with how safety legislation was actually enacted there. Doing so allows the changing attitudes of the state, the owners and management, and the workers to be understood, and combines disparate literatures. It displays the process of establishing state responsibility for industrial workers, and the safety duties understood by other parties. Findings reveal the closeness of the state to the owners that created vague safety laws, and the risks deemed suitable to work under.

Suggested Citation

  • Ben Harvey, 2016. "The Oaks Colliery disaster of 1866: a case study in responsibility," Business History, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(4), pages 501-531, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:bushst:v:58:y:2016:i:4:p:501-531
    DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2015.1086342
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/00076791.2015.1086342
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/00076791.2015.1086342?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Xinping Wang & Cheng Zhang & Jun Deng & Chang Su & Zhenzhe Gao, 2022. "Analysis of Factors Influencing Miners’ Unsafe Behaviors in Intelligent Mines using a Novel Hybrid MCDM Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(12), pages 1-30, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:bushst:v:58:y:2016:i:4:p:501-531. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/FBSH20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.