Court Opinion

ID: 9862787
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 02:11:16.425902+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:33:15.011797
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing
McAMIS, P. J.
Defendant Wilson has petitioned for a rehearing and for permission to re-argue the ease.
The petition asserts that there is no evidence to support our holding that the truss was restored to its original length by welding back the 6 inches cut off the end on the preceding day. It is said the severed portion was not used and that the truss was in fact lengthened “by welding onto the new end vertical two channel irons eight inches wide, which overlapped two inches, thus lengthening the truss the required six inches.”
If we erred in this respect, we fail to see how the result would be different in view of Hutton’s admission that he failed to properly weld the diagonal and vertical members and the other evidence that he failed to use the available welding surface and only spot welded these members. It was for the jury to say whether this caused the roof *486to fall. As said in our former opinion, having undertaken to restore the truss it was defendant Wilson’s duty not to endanger the building by improper and unsafe welding.
Petitioner’s assertion that we erroneously based recovery on breach of contract is refuted by the following taken from our opinion [325 S. W. (2d) 297]:
“The came of action is based on tort and it is immaterial in what capacity Wilson was acting, whether as plaintiff’s employee, as Gentry’s employee or as an independent contractor.”
We did discuss the evidence tending to support an agreement by Wilson to restore the truss for $100 but only to show, under the authority cited on pages 8 and 9 of the opinion [325 S. W. (2d) 298], that plaintiff would not be excused from responding in damages to his brother since Wilson, under the evidence, in restoring the truss, stood in privity of contract with Wilson.
We see no point in again discussing defendant’s insistence that the cause of the fall was the mistaken belief that the truss had to be shortened and the decision to cut it. This question was fully considered in our former opinion. There is nothing new offered on that question.
This case was given the most careful consideration by all members of the Court and we feel that we understood the theory and insistence of defendant. We see no reason to depart from our rule that oral argument will generally not be permitted on petition to rehear.
The petition is, therefore, denied.