Court Opinion

ID: 9771619
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:49:03.339774+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:33.961048
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM:
It will be noted that all of this evidence is directed solely to the operation of the conveyor by an electric switch or switches, however, plaintiff testified, as the opinion shows, that when operated by the electric switches the conveyor starts and stops gradually with a maximum swing of six or seven inches. “If it is stopped with any of the switches, it will make a gradual stop.” The evidence mentioned as having been omitted tends only to exclude the operation of the switches *75as a cause of the violent lurch and swing backward and forward and sideways, but it did not exclude acts by fellow servants in other respects than the mere operation of an electric switch or switches and plaintiff’s own testimony tends to show that the unusual action complained of was not due to the control or interference with the electric current by a switch or switches.
Respondent further contends that the opinion conflicts with the rule that “any negligence of a fellow employee making a servant’s place of work unsafe is no defense to the master.” The cases relied upon support the rule, but do not deal with the question as to whether the plaintiff has made a. submissible case of negligence under the res ipsa loquitur doctrine.
It will not be necessary to review other assignments as to matters which are fully covered in the opinion.
The motion for a rehearing is overruled.