71 P. 988 | Utah | 1903
after stating the facts, delivered the opinion of the court.
It will be observed that appellant not only asked permission to amend the bill of exceptions by incorporating therein matters which appear in the reporter’s transcript of the proceedings, and omitted from the bill of exceptions, but to substitute copies of papers that were lost before the bill of exceptions was prepared, and make such copies a part of the record on appeal. A judge before whom a case has been tried may, on a proper showing, allow copies of lost papers fi> be 'substituted and incorporated into the bill of exceptions, as the record shows was done in this case, together with other ma-' terial matters that have been omitted; but this court
Section 9, article 8, of the Constitution of this State, so far as material here, provides: “From all final judgments of the district courts, there shall be a right of appeal to
We will now consider the alleged errors as assigned by appellant in the order in which they are discussed in its brief.
Appellant’s first contention is that the trial court erred in overruling its motion for a nonsuit on the ground that the evidence' showed that plaintiff was guilty of contributary
It may be contended that, notwithstanding the motion for a nonsuit does not directly charge contributory negligence, it is inferred from the phraseology, as the last paragraph of the motion contains thei following allegation: “That the extraordinary use made by plaintiff of this brake was uncalled for and unexpected, and one that the brake was not calculated to sustain.” The trial court undoubtedly held tMs to be a •sufficient allegation to raise the question of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff in using the brake as a substitute for a ladder to enable him to climb onto the car, as the order overruling the motion contains the following paragraph:
“The motion for a nonsuit in this ease appears to- be based upon two principal grounds. The one is that plaintiff in doing what he did assumed the risk. The other ground is that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.”
The trial court having treated the foregoing paragraph •as an allegation of contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff in stepping on the brake referred to, we will, for the purposes of this case, adopt the same view.
The rule has become elementary that it is a duty the master owes to his servant to use reasonable care and prudence for his safety by providing the machinery in use with such •appliances as will enable the servant with ordinary and rea
When the defendant company transferred the car referred to from the passenger service to that of the freight, it was
Appellant assigns as error tbe giving of certain instructions to the jury by tbe court, and tbe court’s refusal to give certain instructions asked for by defendant. We can