Court Opinion

ID: 9827913
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:55:43.513781+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:39.043334
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
In its motion for rehearing, the appellee Casualty Underwriters insist we were in error in our holding that the foreman, Mc-Carter,- had power and authority ⅞0 direct McDaniel’s employees for McDaniel. We were not in error. ' Mr. McDaniel testified :
“Q. Who was your, foreman? A. I handled the job myself.
“Q. I know, but you couldn’t be there all of the time? A. * * * Until I found it necessary, on the account of some other work toward the last end of the job and then I asked Mr. McCarter to finish up the work.”
The evidence as a whole leaves no doubt that at the time Upshur Rhone was injured Mr. McDaniel had already made the arrangement with McCarter to “finish up the work.” For instance, on the day that Up-shur Rhone was injured, McCarter charged the greater part of his time to McDaniel. Yet, McDaniel’s testimony discloses that he himself was on the job until around 5 o’clock of that day. In other words, Mc-Carter was directing McDaniel’s employees for McDaniel in the performance of the steel work whenever it was necessary, even when McDaniel was present.
In its motion for rehearing appellee seeks to make assignments on the ground of alleged conflicts in the jury’s findings, and on the matter of extent of disability, etc. Appellee is in no position to complain of the alleged errors. The assignments which it seeks to invoke were urged by the appellant, Traders & General Insurance Company. The appellee Casualty Underwriters not only did not make any such assignments in its brief, but conceded that there was no merit in said propositions. We quote from its brief as follows:
“The propositions urged by Traders and General Insurance Company in addition to those to which we have replied all urged contentions against Upshur Rhone and seek to reverse the judgment which he obtained against Traders and General Insurance Company on o.ther errors in the case such as alleged conflicts in the jury’s findings, on disability, etc.
“While it appears to us after reading the brief of the appellant, Upshur Rhone, that there is no merit in any of the propositions urged by Traders and General Insurance Company, yet we deem it improper in this brief in behalf of Casualty Underwriters to enter into the controversy which is wholly between Upshur Rhone and the Traders and General Insurance Company and shall urge no reply to any of the points involved in the case except those affecting the liability of Casualty Underwriters.”
Moreover, appellee did not even pray in the alternative for a remand of the case. Its prayer was: “We respectfully pray that the judgment of the trial court be in all things affirmed and in the alternative that it be affirmed in all respects with reference to the appellee, Casualty Underwriters.”
Having contested only the proposition of liability as between it and Traders & General Insurance Company, it is confined to that issue.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.