Court Opinion

ID: 9827698
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:46:58.02028+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:34.616151
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[7] On motion for rehearing it is insisted by appellee that the statement in the opinion that “there is nothing in the record to support the contention put forward by appellees in their brief that Lane had promised to protect Wayman while working in the shaft or that he relied upon this” is in direct contravention of the evidence.
The principal evidence relied upon to support this contention is the testimony of the witness Walker, who was working with Way-man, that Lane told Wayman: “Wayman, go put that guide in. I am going to bring up some iron, and I will ride on the bucket by the time you get) it fixed.” The witness so testified. This testimony, when taken in connection with the fact that Lane then went down, loaded the bucket with steel rods for the roof, and rode on the bucket past the fourth floor to the roof, and that in going up it was necessary for Lane to put his weight on the opposite side of the bucket to prevent *203its tilting when it came to the opening on the fourth floor where Wayman was putting in the guide, could only mean that Lane would do just this. We 'find, as .appellee requests, that Walker gaye this testimony; but we do not think it can be tortured into a promise by Lane to protect or look out for Wayman while putting in the guide. Wayman clearly did not so regard it or rely upon it as an assurance that the bucket .would not be sent down without Lane in it, or be kept above while he was at work in the shaft. Neither did Walker so understand it. When warned by Walker of the danger of the descending bucket, Wayman did not say, “Lane will not send it down while I am in here,” or, “Lane promised me to protect me while doing the work,” but: “Red, I will get out of the way. Don’t be scared about me. I will get out of the way of the bucket.” The evidence does not show that it was necessary to put in the guide at the fourth floor to prevent the descending bucket from tilting there, as the descent was very rapid, almost like a falling stone.
We have set out this evidence in compliance with appellees’ request, and in order that they may have the full benefit of it on appeal; but we do not consider it proper to burden the record with all of the evidence mentioned in his motion.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.