Court Opinion

ID: 9830195
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:58:15.668951+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:15.613636
License: Public Domain

On Motion for a Rehearing.
It is insisted in the motion that the trial court did not peremptorily instruct the jury to find for appellees on the ground alone that it appeared as a matter of law that appellant assumed the risk involved in placing the motorcar on the track, but on the ground also that the testimony did not warrant a finding that appellees were guilty of negligence as charged in the petition. We think the instruction capable of the construction appellee gives it, and it will be found on reference to the opinion that the appeal was disposed of on the theory that the instruction was not erroneous, if it appeared that a finding of negligence on appellees’ part was not authorized.
The negligence charged against appellees was a failure to keep the track “ * * * at said place in proper repair by failing to fill in between the cross-ties, or providing running or cross boards over the same, thus leaving holes between said crossrties, or that which is known as skeleton track, which made said premises dangerous for this plaintiff in the discharge, of said employment; * * * that by reason of defendants’ failure -to keep their premises in a reasonably safe condition by failing to have said runway from toolhouse to track filled in level with said main track and by failing to fill in or board said skeleton track,” appellant was injured as charged, etc.
The testimony relied on to support the allegations set out was that referred to in the opinion. We were of the opinion, and still are, that the jury might have found from that testimony: (1) That at the place used for “rerailing” the motorcar the ground was about 5 inches lower than the track. (2) That running boards to and across the track were not provided for use in placing such cars thereon. (3) That it was usual at such places, and necessary to the safety of the section men engaged in placing such cars on the track, to fill in so the ground would be level with the rails of the track, or else provide •running and cross boards for use in placing such cars thereon. (4) That, had the ground been so filled, or had suoh boards been provided, it would not have been necessary to lift the car over the rails, and appellant would not have been injured as he charged he was. On such findings we think the jury would have had a right to conclude that appellee was guilty of negligence which was a proximate cause of injury to appellant.
Therefore the motion is overruled.