Court Opinion

ID: 9833726
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:58:12.200129+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:06.199564
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Tbe appellant assumes that this court affirmed tbe case, on tbe theory that tbe Workman’s Compensation Law, passed October, 1912, and effective September, 1913, controls it. We do not refer to the act in tbe opinion and are unable to see upon what appellant based its assumption. Tbe mere fact that one of tbe judges asked a question during tbe oral argument, before tbe court, certainly does not warrant any such presumption.
[3,4] The employé does not assume tbe negligence of tbe master unless be knows, or should have known, thereof. Tbe fact that be may know tbe master is repairing a stairway does not charge him with tbe knowledge that tbe master has negligently placed a timber in tbe door through which bis duties require him to pass every hour of tbe night, in such a position as to endanger him. The fact that be was fortunate enough to miss it in making bis trips theretofore during the night does not conclusively show that he knew it was so placed in tbe door, or that be ought to have known it was there. He bad tbe right to assume it was not there and that tbe master bad done its duty. There was nothing shown by tbe facts to put him upon tbe inquiry as to whether the plank was so dangerously placed in tbe doorway. On tbe question of negligence in maintaining tbe premises as a reasonably safe place, we cite Memphis, etc., v. Gardner, 171 S. W. 1082-1085.
Tbe motion for rehearing will be overruled.