Court Opinion

ID: 9834210
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:23:51.127066+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:09:05.377401
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
The appellee insists that even if the failure to warn him that the saws were revolving was not the proximate cause of the injury, he was nevertheless entitled to recover if his injury was the proximate result of the alleged negligence in directing him, without first stopping the saws from running, to unchoke the saws. We fully disposed of this question in the original opinion, and we feel constrained to adhere to the ruling. As shown, the evidence is conclusive that the injury did not result from unskillfulness in the use of the machine or saws, or from want of knowledge on the part of appellee that the saws were revolving. The appellee’s arm came in contact with the saws, as admitted by him in his testimony, solely through his accidental fall, and his falling was from no condition or fault traceable to appellant in the record. The case of Ry. Co. v. Bayne, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 392, 67 S. W. 443, is clearly distinguishable on the facts from the present appeal.
The motion was ordered overruled.