Court Opinion

ID: 9864684
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 14:57:59.124381+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:24:07.168952
License: Public Domain

THE COURT.
The application for a hearing in this court after decision by the district court of appeal for the third appellate district is denied.
In denying such application we deem it proper to say that we are not satisfied that the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conclusion that the defendant was negligent in the matter of the selection of Minchin to operate the crané, and our denial is not to be taken as an approval of the conclusion of the district court of appeal in this respect. As stated in the opinion the verdict is not required to rest alone on any such negligence, and it is amply sustained by evidence showing negligence on the part of the defendant in the operation of the crane. As we understand the record, no claim was made by the answer that any injury received by plaintiff was caused by the negligence of a fellow-servant.