Court Opinion

ID: 9829293
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:09:59.882624+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:59.539356
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellee did not, as contended by appellant admit that he knew of the hole in the floor into which the wheel ran in the car, but, on the other hand, he testified that he knew nothing of any hole but the one he covered with the blocks. He testified: “As I stated before, there was some rubbish and dirt on the floor. I couldn’t see any other *699•part except where I brushed the rubbish away to put the blocks. From the wheels going down and running is the way X detected something wrong. * * * Tes; I did answer that, if the floor had been smooth and sound, the accident would not have occurred, to the best of my opinion. * * * I didn’t notify the men of the condition because it was covered by the blocks. Where I raked away there I put the blocks, that part. That was all I saw, right where I cleaned away. After the wheel sagged down in the hole, then I knew there was something wrong. X didn’t see it before. * * * I could not see any part of the floor, except •that little part that I raked away. * * » That place that I, saw there did not have anything to do with the wheel going fast. The blocks were there.” The witness, Charles Miller, testified: “When I got in the car to help Frank Grashel out, there was a lot of rubbish in front of the door, or maybe a little way from the door. There was an impression in the floor about four inches wide and about ten inches long from the way the rubbish was shoved through the floor.” The testimony showed, without contradiction, that the floor of the car was covered with rubbish, that appellee uncovered only a small space upon which to place the blocks, that the accident occurred by reason of the wheel running into a large hole which was covered with rubbish and of the existence of which appellee had no knowledge.
[12] It was the duty of appellant to use reasonable care to furnish appellee with a safe place in which to perform the labor which he had been ordered to perform. The wheels were being unloaded in the usual way, and, if the floor of the car had not been rotten and unsafe, the accident would not have occurred.
[13] It was the duty of the master, and not of the servant, to inspect the floor of the car, the instrumentality furnished with which the servant was to perform the labor assigned to him. An ordinary inspection by the master would have revealed the unsafe condition of the floor of the car. The jury found that appellee did not assume the risk, and was not guilty of contributory negligence. The evidence sustains the verdict
The motion is overruled.