Court Opinion

ID: 9832392
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:52:40.235938+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:46.347656
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant in its motion for rehearing, as it did in its original brief, insists that the trial court committed error in refusing to permit its witnesses Wilson and Cantrell to testify that they had seen several other such compresses of the same pattern, and that none of them had a guard rail at the place where it is alleged that appellant was negligent in not having such guard rail.
[3] We deem it proper that we should state more fully our reasons for overruling this assignment. In the first place, this testimony was not offered as expert testimony, but only to show how several other Webb presses, that these witnesses had seen, were erected. In the second place, such testimony would have been only cumulative. There was no claim that Cantrell was an expert as to the erection of compresses. The witness Wilson testified, without objection, as follows:
“My business is that of erecting compresses. Am in the employ of the Webb Compress Company. I put in the machinery in this compress here in Hamilton. This press is what is known as ‘an eight-inch compound lever press.’ This press was erected in 1911. The Webb compress is a standard press. The press is up to date, and is in use all of the time all over the country. The press in Hamilton was put up in the usual way; put up according to the plans and specifications put out by the company. The Webb Company sends out plans and specifications as to how their presses shall be constructed and installed, and this one was installed according to the plans and specifications. The Webb Compress Company furnishes a man to superintend the construction and erection of all their compresses.”
Explaining a model of the Webb Compress, he said:
“There is no guard rail around this platform (the one where appellee was injured). It would be impracticable to put one there. It would not be any safer. We put that gallery there for the purpose of oiling the press, and to put a rail there would be in the way of the oiler getting into the press.”
This testimony, in so far as it related to the manner in which all Webb presses were constructed, was not contradicted, and it would not have strengthened appellant’s defense to prove that some of said compresses were erected without a guard rail. The error, if any, in excluding such testimony, was harmless.
Our views as to charging the jury in reference to the minority of appellee are set forth in our opinion on the former appeal of this case (162 S. W. 1023), for which reason we have not repeated them in our opinion herein.
[4] This suit was brought upon two theories, viz: One was that appellant was guilty of negligence in failing to have a guard rail, and “in permitting grease and other slippery matter to accumulate in and around unprotected, unguarded, and dangerous machinery” ; the other was in failing to instruct a minor as to the dangerous character of the place in which he was injured. The case was not submitted on special issues; hence we cannot tell upon which of these issues the jury based their verdict; and, if the evidence be sufficient to sustain either, it is our duty to sustain the verdict.
The motion for a rehearing is overruled.
Overruled.