Court Opinion

ID: 9827203
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:16:40.5043+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:26.180808
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In view of the earnestness with which ap-pellee insists that we erred in our conclusion reached that the judgment of the trial court should he reversed, we deem it proper to specify more particularly our reasons for condemning the special instruction given at appellee’s instance and copied in our original opinion.
[10] R. L. Davenport superintendent of ap-pellee’s gin plant, testified: “In the latter part of the fall, the machinery always gets more or less run down, and that fall I got Mr. Ousley to repair the machinery, and put it in good condition. I think the first time C. M. Van Geem worked was the time that Mr. Nobles took a lay-off for two or three days, as has already been stated. He worked around the gin most all fall, helping to do anything that was to be done about the gin. I think that was the second season that he had been doing general work around the gin. The first time he run the gin stands those three days. It was just like he said. Nobles wanted to get a lay-off, and he said that he thought Charley could run the stands, and I asked Charley if he wanted to try it, and he said he would like to have the job if he could run it. Then, after Nobles came back and the rush of the season was over, I cut the crew down. I had been using three men upstairs, but, when I cut the crew down, the ginner would have to help tie out. Jess had not been helping do this like he promised, and I told him he would have to do this or quit, and he said he would quit. I then sent for Charley to come and run the stands. There were four or five bales of cotton on the yard when Charley came up. Sin Hunt had been running the engine and he had quit. I took charge of the engine myself and told Charley to go and oil up and run the stands. We ginned about 10 bales of cotton that day and 10 or 12 the next. Charley worked about three or four weeks this time. About four weeks, I guess. Mr. Ousley helped him awhile. I always tried to get experienced hands at the beginning of the season, but the season was about- over, and I thought that Charley would be able to run the rest of the season as there was not much to do. I would not have used him during the rush of the season, if I could have gotten an experienced man. From my knowledge of what Charley (meaning appellant) knew about gin machinery, I certainly did think he was competent to run the stands, especially while there was not much cotton to gin. He said he thought he could run them. I had promised the job to Charley, and told Mr. Ousley so, and I employed Mr. Ousley to put things *1112in good order. I don’t remember just bow long lie worked before tbe accident occurred. It occurred some time about tbe SOtb day of December, 1910 * * * I don’t remember that I gave him any instructions when be commenced work. I could not be sure; but I always instructed all iny hands to report anything that got out of order. * • • I can’t say that I instructed Charley myself, but X always instructed my employés or had some one who is competent to do so. I instructed him that if anything got out of order that he could not fix for him to report it to me. It was the duty of the ginner to keep everything in repair or report whatever got out of order. Tes, sir; I mean that is the duty of an experienced ginner.”
We have found no evidence in the record tending to show that the worn condition of the lever which caused it to break, if such was the cause, was patent and open to common observation of a person engaged as appellant in operating the gin.
We do not think that the testimony of R. L. Davenport was sufficient to warrant the court.to submit, as was done in the special instruction quoted in our original opinion, the issue whether or not it was appellant’s duty to inspect the lever and other appliances prior to the accident to determine whether or not it was in a condition reasonably safe for use, nor was there any other testimony sufficient to warrant a finding on ap-pellee’s favor upon that issue.
[11] The'error in admitting the testimony of the witness Ousley that appellee’s gin was the best constructed building of the kind that he ever saw was harmless, and would not •cause.a reversal-of the judgment, as it appears from appellant’s own testimony that prior to the accident he was familiar with the manner of its construction and of the vibrations which he claims constituted a contributing cause of the accident. We have pointed out that error for the future guidance of the trial court in the event appellant upon any theory shows himself entitled to recover for the alleged negligence of appellee, if any in the construction of the building.
The motion is overruled.