Court Opinion

ID: 9847601
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:02:54.028091+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:22.503117
License: Public Domain

Benham, Judge,
dissenting.
Although I agree with the majority’s conclusion that a question of fact exists concerning the aggravation of appellant’s injury, I cannot agree that appellee is entitled to judgment as a matter of law with regard to liability for appellant’s initial injury. For that reason, I must dissent.
Although railroads are not insurers of their employees, their duty to employees to provide a safe place to work includes, as the majority notes, the duty to furnish employees with adequate equipment and sufficient crew to perform an assigned task. The record in this case *364contains directly contradictory evidence concerning the availability of sufficient crew and adequate equipment: appellant’s evidence was that there was no one available to help lift heavy loads, and appellee’s evidence was that there were other employees available to help; appellant’s evidence was that a crane was available to lift the scaffolding but was not used for that purpose because supervisory personnel thought it too slow, while appellee’s evidence was that the crane was not suitable for such light loads as the scaffolding appellant was lifting when he was injured; and appellant presented evidence that the determination of whether a load was too heavy was for supervisory personnel, but appellee’s evidence showed that such decisions were left to individual judgment.
Decided March 19, 1986.
William R. Moseley, Jr., J. Weldon Granger, Donald F. Ruzicka, for appellant.
Edgar A. Neely, Jr., Michael N. Weathersby, for appellee.
Considering these conflicts in the evidence regarding whether appellee met its duty to provide a safe workplace, I must conclude that summary judgment for appellee was not authorized. Accordingly, I would reverse the judgment and return this case to the trial court for submission of these issues to a jury.
I am authorized to state that Judge Carley and Judge Beasley join in this dissent.