Court Opinion

ID: 6655774
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-20 20:57:38.593627+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:59:54.545244
License: Public Domain

The following opinion on rehearing was filed November 16, 1904. Judgment of reversal adhered to:
Oldham, C.
The original opinion in this case was announced by Ouetie, O., ante, p. 572. The issues are fully and fairly stated in the opinion and need not be again set out. A rehearing was granted for a further examination of the conclusion reached. It is held in the opinion that the judgment of the district court was erroneous, in refusing to submit to the jury the question as to whether plaintiff was injured while disobeying an instruction given him by the foreman of defendant, who, for that purpose, stood in the place of the master. One of the defenses relied upon and supported by the testimony of defendant’s foreman was that, when plaintiff was employed, he was directed by the foreman to turn his back to the foreman when the moulds were being filled with molten metal. While this direction was denied by plaintiff, the testimony on this *576issue raised a question of fact on a meritorious defense, which should have been submitted in a proper instruction. It is not necessary to determine whether the instruction requested was the best that could have been compiled; it is sufficient to say that it fairly called the attention of the trial court to one of the defenses relied upon, and that either the instruction requested, or a better one embodying the same principle, should have been given. In fact, it is probably the duty of the trial court, without a request, to embody in the instructions to the jury every meritorious cause of action or ground of defense raised by the pleadings and supported by competent evidence. But, in any event, when a special request is made for an instruction which fairly reflects either a meritorious cause of action or ground of defense, the court should either give the instruction requested or substitute another in its stead which embodies the same principle.
While, as above indicated, the defendant introduced testimony tending to show that the injury was occasioned by plaintiff disobeying the orders of his foreman in not turning his back when the chills were being filled, yet, even under defendant’s testimony, there is a serious doubt as to whether plaintiff might not have been misled by another direction given him by the foreman, to the effect that, if he (the plaintiff) stood behind the foreman when the metal was poured into the chills, he could not be hurt. But, in any event, the question as to whether plaintiff Avas properly instructed in such a manner as to fully warn him of his danger and whether he obeyed or disobeyed the instruction so given, Avas a question raised by the pleadings on Avhich there was conflicting evidence and, as a correct verdict depended on this issue, it should have been given in a propia* instruction to the jury; and as, for this reason, a new trial will be necessary, we would suggest that the learned trial judge give a new set of instructions to the jury, confined strictly to the questions in issue, and riot submitting any question unsupported by any testimony, as was done in the 5th and 6th paragraphs of instructions *577given on its own motion at the former trial. These instructions submitted the alleged negligence of the defendant in not providing a shield or guard over the frame to prevent the heated metal from flying out. While negligence. is alleged in the petition because of this failure, yet the testimony wholly fails to. support this allegation of the petition, and, being wholly unsupported by competent evidence, it should not have been submitted to the consideration of the jury.
We therefore recommend that the former judgment of this court be adhered to.
Ames and Letton, CC., concur.
By the Court: For the reasons stated in the foregoing opinion, the former judgment of this court is adhered to.
Reversed.