Court Opinion

ID: 9831401
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:03:41.249844+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:34.380089
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In answer to a very forceful motion for rehearing presented by appellant, we desire to correct, or rather more accurately state, the conclusions of fact on which our former opinion in this case was based.
We say in that opinion that “the undisputed evidence shows that it (the chain the breaking of which caused the death of da ceased) was not intended to be used in lifting heavy loads like the loaded car,” and that it was entirely sufficient for the purpose for which it was furnished the wrecking crew by the defendant, and that “the defendant could not have anticipated, when it furnished this chain for lifting light loads and furnished other stronger chains for lifting heavy loads,” that the deceased would have selected for use in lifting this heavy car the small chain not furnished for such purpose.
Counsel for appellant very earnestly insist that our conclusion that the chain in question was not intended to be used for lifting heavy loads like the one being hoisted at the time the chain broke and was not furnished by the railroad company for such purpose is not shown by the undisputed evidence. In support of this insistence the motion for rehearing sets out the following testimony of the witness Reese, who was one of defendant’s witnesses:
“I did not hear anybody present complain about the size of the chain being used. That was H. .& T. C. chain that came out of the wrecker. It was just an ordinary switch chain, seven-eighths inch chain. It is the kind of a chain we use in tying up a car when we go to make a lift. During the two months I had been there that chain or similar chains had been used. We had lifted several cars in the three days we had been there. By ‘several’ I mean there was seven or eight or ten; there was about seven or eight, I believe. Before that we had lifted box cars and stock cars and different classes of cars. I don’t know, how long the H. & T. O. had had this particular chain we were using. I hadn’t • noticed any label on the chain showing what weight it would carry. The chain looked good to me. I did not have any reason to question the fact it would raise that load. I did not hear anybody question the fact. I did not hear either one of the assistant superintendents say anything about it when we lifted the other end. Seven-eighths inch chain, wrecker chain, is the usual and ordinary wrecker chain used; that is what might be termed a standard in railway wrecker chains.”
This testimony, and in fact all of the testimony, shows that this chain was furnished *794for use by the wrecker crew in lifting cars, but utterly fails to show that it was furnished for use in lifting a loaded car of the weight of the car deceased was using it to hoist. All of the evidence shows that the car deceased was engaged in lifting from the track was much heavier than the usual car handled by the wrecking crew, and further shows that larger, stronger chains of ample strength to lift the car were furnished by the railroad company. The chain used was standard wrecking chain and the usual and ordinary wrecking chain. Appellee was certainly not negligent in supplying the wrecker with this chain, which was a proper instrument for the wrecking crew to use in hoisting ears and other wreckage. If it had only supplied this small chain, which was of insufficient strength to lift the heavily loaded car deceased was called upon to Jhoist, it would have failed in its duty to furnish deceased with safe and proper appliances with which to perform his work. But when it furnished a safe and sufficient chain it fulfilled its duty in this regard, and should not be held liable for the failure of deceased, whose duty is was to select a proper chain for the performance of the work, to make a proper selection.
As stated in our former opinion, the failure of the railroad company to have the chain inspected and tested could not possibly have caused or contributed to the death of the deceased. All the evidence shows that the chain was not defective in material or in any other respect. The testimony of the expert witnesses for appellant shows that a chain, of this size cannot be made of sufficient strength to lift a load as heavy as the one deceased attempted to lift with it. If it had been tested by one of the testing machines spoken of by these witnesses, such test would have only been made to determine whether it would bear the weight it was designed to carry, and the undisputed evidence shows that it did carry this weight without breaking or disclosing any defect when it was used to lift the end of the car which was first raised.
It is true that the evidence shows that the lifting capacity of a seven-eighths inch chain of this kind is a matter of expert scientific knowledge and could have been ascertained by the railroad company and the chain marked so that any one using it would be informed of the maximum weight it could lift or carry with safety. If the failure to so mark the chain could be held to be negligence on the part of the railroad company, such negligence was not alleged in the petition, and therefore appellant could-not recover on this ground. '
After a careful consideration of the motion for rehearing, we feel constrained to adhere to the conclusions expressed in our former opinion, and to refuse the motion.