Court Opinion

ID: 9866322
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 03:45:32.873854+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:20:16.820559
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
In the motion for rehearing and especially in the suggestions in support thereof, defendant stresses the point, among others, that this court erred in treating the case in the original opinion as a master and servant case. Other points raised in the motion were fully discussed and properly decided in the opinion, and no further discussion of them is needed. The point requiring our special attention is that the opinion treats the case as one of master and servant, governed by the rules of law applicable thereto. It is plaintiff’s contention that the case was tried throughout as a master and servant case, and that in this appeal defendant has switched positions, which may not be permitted. Defendant insists the case was not tried nisi as a master and servant case, but we find to the contrary. In fact, defendant has recognized that this case is to be treated as a master and servant case throughout, and so treated it upon the original submission in this court and did not suggest anything to the contrary prior to its motion for a rehearing. In its original brief, defendant stated:
“Now the rule for which we are contending is fundamental in this — the defendant occupies the same position, so far as its legal duty is concerned, as that of a master, and in that position it must be conceded that these fimdamental rules govern:
“ (1) That the defendant was not an insurer of the safety of any of its appliances. (2) That the mere fact that the handle broke and the plaintiff fell and was injured does not in and of itself prove negligence. (3) That the defendant was only required to exercise ordinary care with respect to the instrument furnished when used *836for the purpose for which it was intended. (4) That the servant cannot dictate to the master the kind and character of instrument that it shall use in the conduct of its business other than whatever it uses must be furnished and maintained in a reasonably safe condition by the exercise of ordinary care.”
There is nothing more firmly established in the law than that a party is bound in an appellate court by the theory on which he tried the case below. The original opinion recognizes the theory upon which both parties tried the case, namely, and it was the duty of defendant to exercise reasonable care to furnish plaintiff a reasonably safe car and safe appliances. ~We think the original opinion covers all points now contended for, and that, in following the theory upon which the cause was tried, it properly declares the law. We adhere to our former opinion affirming the judgment.
Bland, J., concurs; Trimble, P. J., absent.