Court Opinion

ID: 9831402
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:03:41.25383+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:34.381376
License: Public Domain

On Second Motion for Rehearing.
In an earnest desire to correctly determine the issues presented by this appeal, we have given full consideration to a second motion for rehearing filed by appellant. We find nothing in the motion to shake our conclusion that the judgment of the court below should be affirmed for the reasons stated in our original opinion, and we do not deem it necessary to add anything to what we have before said in discussing the questions raised by that appeal. We desire, however, to answer some of the criticisms made in the second motion for rehearing upon the findings of fact in our original opinion and our opinion upon the first motion for rehearing.
The first complaint in this motion is that our finding that “all the evidence shows that the car deceased was engaged in lifting from the track was much heavier than the usual car handled by the crew” is not sustained by the record because the witness Shipp testified:
“This car loaded with cinders was a medium load; you wouldn’t exactly call it a medium load, either; a medium load runs about 85,000 pounds. I wouldn’t call this an extremely heavy load, because the oil tanks are an extremely heavy load, 145,000 pounds; and as well as I remember a car of cinders, these cars, with these iron sides, weigh about 110,000 to 125,000 pounds.”
This is a sample of the fairness of thé criticism contained in the motion. The witness Shipp, in the quotation from his testimony, was speaking of the weight of the loaded car. This is manifest from the language of the quotation and the context of his testimony. The weight of the car unloaded was 44,000 pounds. It was a steel car, and weighed more than the average car. Wrecked cars were not generally lifted with the load in or on them. One of the grounds of negligence alleged and relied on by the appellant was the order of the superintendent directing that this car should be lifted before it was unloaded.
The third assignment of error presented in appellant’s brief is as follows:
“The court erred in peremptorily instructing the jury to return a verdict for the defendant, because the issue was raised in the pleadings and in the evidence as to the negligence of the defendant through its vice principal, in requiring Andrew Roberg to hoist the car upon which he was working, while loaded with cinders, instead of permitting him to unload the car before hoisting the same, and that such negligence was the proximate cause of the death of Andrew Roberg.”
Such being the record, we hardly think counsel upon reflection will contend that our iinding that all the evidence shows that this car was much heavier than the usual ear handled by the crew is not supported by the record.
*795There is nothing in the former opinion of this court from which it can he implied that the court was of opinion that the railroad company was negligent in not testing the strength of this chain, or furnishing a machine by which it could have been tested. On the contrary, we expressly held that no negligence was shown in this respect, and this holding was based, not, as stated in appellant’s motion, on the ground that the pleading does not allege such ground of negligence, but on the finding that the undisputed evidence shows that no proper or reasonable test of the chain would have shown any defect; the undisputed evidence being that it was in perfect condition and capable of sustaining all the weight it was designed to carry.
It would serve no useful purpose to further answer the contentions made in the motion. In our endeavor to fully find all of the facts upon which appellant’s claim is based we have probably given consideration to immaterial matters.
The controlling facts in this case, upon which an affirmance of the judgment is based, and which are shown by the undisputed evidence, are: That a sufficient chain was furnished the deceased with which to raise the car, and that it was the duty of the deceased to select the proper chain from the adequate stock furnished him by the appellee. Upon these facts the master cannot be held liable for the failure of the deceased to select the proper and suitable chain with which to perform the work.
We think the motion for rehearing should be refused, and it has been so ordered.
Refused.