Court Opinion

ID: 8823067
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-26 15:39:40.595973+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:04:41.821102
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Fitch delivered the opinion of the court. Abstract of the Decision. 1. Appeal and error, § 1411*—when verdict will not be disturbed on appeal. Where the evidence upon questions of pure fact is conflicting, the Appellate Court is not authorized to reverse the finding of the jury and the judgment of the trial court, unless after an examination of all the evidence it appears that the verdict is manifestly contrary to the preponderance of the evidence. 2. Master and servant, § 166*—when servant need not inspect appliances. In the absence of notice that a pawl is defective, a servant has the right to rely upon the inspection of such hoisting apparatus by the representative of the master to whom has been delegated the duty of furnishing the appliance, and such servant is not required to inspect the appliance. 3. Master and servant, § 363*—when servant does not assume rislc of injury. Where evidence in an action for injuries showed that a defective derrick was used successfully for several hours, the danger arising from the use of such derrick was not so obvious that a reasonably prudent person would have refused to use it, and a servant in obeying the direction of the representative of the master to use the apparatus did not assume the risk of injury. 4. Master and servant, § 623*—what evidence as to defective appliance admissible. In an action for injuries to a servant caused by a derrick, where some evidence tended to show that the derrick was in the same condition two days after the accident as at the time, there was no reversible error in permitting a witness to testify as to its condition on such second day. 5. Master and servant, § 777*—when instruction properly refused as misleading. In an action for personal injuries sustained by a servant by reason of a defective derrick, an instruction which might have been understood as announcing the view that it was the duty of the servant to inspect the appliance for defects was properly refused as misleading, as such duty under the evidence was that of the representative of the master.