Court Opinion

ID: 9688672
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:00:12.285802+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:41.093430
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing
PER CURIAM.
Appellant argues in its application for rehearing that there was no question for the jury because all the evidence showed that the blasting was a safe operation and there was no conflict in the testimony in this regard.
We think the quoted testimony of E. J. Ladd, the city engineer, sufficiently shows that a jury question was presented on the question of negligence. Ladd was called as a witness for appellee. At the conclusion of his cross examination, the following occurred:
“Q. Now, then, I will ask you, based on the knowledge that you have of that particular chert pit and your knowledge and experience you have had .in this kind of work, if it is not your opinion that chert can be shot down in this pit up here by using dynamite or other explosives without there being anything dangerous about it, if it is properly done?”
(Plaintiff’s objection overruled.)
“A. Yes, sir, it can be done.
“Q. If any damage was done to any one’s property in the obtaining of chert from this pit by the use of dynamite, or other explosives, it would be because it was not being done properly, was done in a negligent manner ?
“A. Yes, sir, that is true.
“Q. That is the only way anyone’s property could be damaged?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Re-Direct Examination
“Q. If an explosion was set off in the chert pit that jarred windows out of a house around it, and it shook houses, and it shook houses, and cracked rock houses around the pit, would that be an indication that the charge was in excess, or negligently exploded?
“A. It was an indication that it was improperly done.
*464“Q. It would indicate that it was improperly done, wouldn’t it?
“A. Yes, sir.”
' Application for rehearing denied.
• LIVINGSTON, C. J., and LAWSON, 'SIMPSON and GOODWYN, JJ., concur.