Court Opinion

ID: 9829124
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:01:01.812491+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:57.596933
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing
In our former opinion herein we reversed the judgment of the trial court, for the reason that we did not think that the duty of the employer to furnish an employs with a safe place in which to work was an issue in this case, whether the appellee was an experienced or an inexperienced “topman,” and that the court erred in submitting.this issue to the jury. Appellant’s propositions as to this matter are: (1) “The rule that it is the duty of the master to provide a reasonably safe place and structure for his servants to work upon does not compel him to keep a building which they are employed in erecting in a safe condition every moment of their work, so far as its safety depends on the due performance of that work by them or their fellow servants. Or, differently stated, this obligation has no reference to the safety or condition of the thing the servant is employed to repair or complete.” (2) “The master is under no obligation to warn * * * where the servant has represented himself to *368lie competent, and the master is ignorant of his inexperience.”
As indicated in our opinion herein, we think these are sound propositions of law, hut appellee insists they are not presented in this case under any proper assignment of error or statement of the facts. A re-examination of the record has convinced us that ap-pellee is correct in this regard. These propositions are made under appellant’s eighth assignment of error, which is as follows: “The court erred in refusing to give to the jury special charge No. 1, requested by the defendant as follows: ‘In this case you are instructed to find a verdict for the defendant.’ ” We did not sustain this assignment, and it should not have been sustained, unless under the undisputed facts the appellant, as a mat-tef of law, was not liable for the injuries received by appellee. The evidence was conflicting upon every material fact in the case. The appellee’s right of recovery did not depend solely upon the proposition that the place was itself an unsafe one in which to work. Such being the case, the propositions above set out are not pertinent to said assignment. The only statement under said assignment is: “See statement of the case, supra.” By reference to the preliminary statement referred to, we find the description of the machine and the manner in which ap-pellee was injured fully set out, but such statement shows a conflict in the evidence, and does not justify a peremptory instruction for appellant. Such being the case, we were in error in sustaining said propositions under said assignment.
Upon a careful review of the entire record, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the trial court should have been affirmed. We therefore grant the'motion of appellee for a rehearing, and affirm the judgment of the court beloiv.
Motion granted, and judgment affirmed.