Court Opinion

ID: 9828766
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:43:21.383771+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:22:46.100183
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
On reconsideration of this ease, on appel-lee’s motion for a rehearing, the majority of the court, upon whose opinion the case was *850decided, have reached the conclusion that they erred in reversing and remanding the case. They are now of the opinion that the principle announced by the Supreme Court of the state of Missouri, in the case of Corby v. M. & K. Tel. Co., 132 S. W. 712, is applicable to the facts of the case, and should control the decision of the question upon which the present case was reversed.
In the case cited it is held, in effect, that the general rule of law that the master is not liable to the servant for injuries sustained while engaged in making a dangerous place safe, etc., has no application when the servant making the necessary repairs has no supervision or control over the work being done, is not his own boss, but is working under the control, orders, and directions of a foreman who has complete charge and control of the work, as well as of the servant doing the work; that in such a ease the servant is not the representative of the master. The rule of law here stated is correct, and the facts in the present case bring it within that rule. The appellee was not executing the work in which he was engaged at the time'of receiving his injuries at his own instance and discretion, and according to his own plans, knowledge, and judgment, but was doing the work at the time and in the manner he was directed to do it by appellant’s vice principal, Seaton.
It follows that the majority of the court erred in reversing the case because of the court’s failure to give the defendant’s re quested charge, which is set out in the original opinion, and appellee’s motion for rehearing is granted, and the judgment of .the lower court is affirmed.