Court Opinion

ID: 9733631
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:12:14.687225+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:24:02.294065
License: Public Domain

THE COURT.
In their petition for rehearing, counsel for respondents profess not to be able to understand the rationale of our decision. It is really quite simple. We again point out the four elements which compel a conclusion that the judgment of nonsuit in favor of the Harris Construction Co. must be reversed: (1) The plaintiff, acting in the course of his employment, had a right to be where he was before the accident; (2) there was ample evidence of the negligence of the Harris Construction Co., including its deliberate disruption of the safety locking devices on the elevator doors, the inadequate lighting of the elevator shaft, the failure to maintain an operator or to give adequate warning of the danger, all of which the jury was entitled to pass upon; (3) the causal connection between such negligence, if it were found by the jury to exist, and the injury sustained by the plaintiff, is apparent ; (4) the questions whether the peril was “obvious,” or should have been known to the plaintiff, or whether he was guilty of contributory negligence, were not conceded; they were factual issues which should have been submitted to the jury.
The petition for a rehearing is denied.
The petition of respondent Harris Construction Co. for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied October 1, 1963.