Court Opinion

ID: 9864520
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 13:46:04.497795+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:15:54.259120
License: Public Domain

THE COURT.
[4] In its petition for rehearing, appellant emphasizes the point that Ward assumed the risk that was incident to such negligence as caused the accident. The contention is manifestly based upon the assumption that he should have anticipated that De Neef would negligently pry off his end of the beam before the other was loosened. If that is to be held as a matter of law, it seems to us it would sweep away the right of a foreman to recover for any negligence of the workman. The danger of so treating the beam was so obvious that it would not be necessary to caution the man of ordinary intelligence against such conduct, nor do we think it should be anticipated that anyone would be so reckless. We may add, however, that the instruction which was given by Ward as to how the beam should fall would clearly imply that both ends of it were to be loosened before either was projected from the upright.
Appellant thinks an inconsistency appears in the opinion by reason of the statement: “We may not be able to say just why it fell as it did. Probably the jury had no decided opinion as to that.” Of course, the statement in the first of these sentences must be true, regardless of the soundness of our opinion as to the merits of the appeal. The second sentence is susceptible of misunderstanding, as it has been misunderstood by the learned counsel. What we had in view was the whole situation, the entire cause of the peculiar direction taken by the beam, and what was said was really in response to various speculations of appellant as to the many circumstances that may have contributed to the result. The statement is not a full and accurate expression of what was intended, clarity being somewhat sacrificed to conciseness.
We still think the jury may not have had a decided opinion as to all these circumstances. But if they believed, as they undoubtedly did, that the negligence of defendant’s *192servants contributed to the accident, and the evidence supports a finding to that effect, it matters not about other elements such as rusty nails or rotten uprights that may have affected the fall of the beam.
Of course, no opinion can be written or any conclusion announced that cannot be criticized with some show of justification by astute and censorious counsel, but we have given the cause careful consideration, and our judgment is that we should not interfere with the verdict. With that, we are content.
The petition for rehearing is, therefore, denied.
A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on September 8, 1919.
All the Justices concurred.