Court Opinion

ID: 9831065
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:46:22.40815+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:29.664741
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The argument is made that this case should be reversed for two reasons: First, because there was no evidence to support a finding by the jury that the fellow employes of the appellee negligently failed to render proper assistance in lifting the box; and, second, because, if the box was too heavy, the appellee knew as much about its weight as did the foreman, and therefore, as a matter of law, assumed the risk of injury from an attempt to lift it.
[7] The court submitted, without objection, as a ground of recovery, the issue of negligence on the part of the appellee’s fellow employes. The appellant’s 'brief in this court contains no assignment of error attacking the sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding upon that issue. It appears that *353the question is raised for the first time in the argument on this motion for a rehearing. Under the state of the record we think it comes too late.
[8] The second ground for reversing the ease was presented on appeal in different special charges refused. Those assignments were overruled, because they ignored the issue of negligence on the part of the appellee’s assistants. We do not mean, however, to hold that, in the absence of that particular issue, any of those assignments would have been sustained.
[9,10] We are of the opinion that article 6645 of the Revised Civil Statutes, which limits the defense of assumed risk, applies .to the facts of this case. Thornhill v. K. C., M. & O. Ry. Co., 223 S. W. 490; Lancaster v. Johnson, 224 S. W. 207; Rice & Lyon v. Lewis, 59 Tex. Civ. App. 273, 125 S. W. 961; Stephensville, N. & S. P. Ry. Co. v. Shelton, 208 S. W. 915; G., H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Brown, 181 S. W. 238. Whether or not the appellee assumed the risk was therefore an issue for the jury. The term “defect,” as used in the statute, should not be restricted, so as to defeat the manifest purpose of the Legislature in exacting this law. It was the legal duty of the railway company in this instance to furnish a sufficient force to perform the service in which the appellee and his associates were engaged. A failure to discharge that duty created a situation not materially different from one arising' from the failure to furnish adequate mechanical equipment when such is to be used in lifting heavy weights. The word “defective” means, among other .things, incomplete; less than what is required. It may be said with propriety that a force of men less than what the legal duty of the employer required to perform a given service is, in a sense, a “defective” force, within the meaning of the statute. Most of the authorities in this state, relied on by the appellant, were cases which originated before this article of the statute was enacted.
The motion is overruled.