Opinion of the court by
Affirming.
Aрpellant, a workman oí a contractor paрering certain, rooms of appellee’s house, wаs injured by stepping onto-a balcony leading from an upper porch to an adjacent room, when the balcony fell, precipitating him to the ground and injuring him. It was not necessary to use this balcony in going to or from the rooms upon which he was at work, but he did use it, without the knowledge or consent off appellee, for his (appellant(s) greater сonvenience in calling -to a fellow workman below. Thе falling of the balcony was primarily caused by its unsafe and weakened condition, unknown to appellee. The circuit court gave the jury a peremptory instruction at the close of plaintiff’s evidence to find for the defendаnt. The question, presented here is, what was appellee’s duty to- appellant under the circumstances? We are of opinion, and so hold, that appellant, while engaged in that work, in using such parts of appellee’s prеmises as were reasonably necessary to enable him to do his work, was on the premises under the assurance in lаw by appellee that such parts so necessarily used were reasonably safe for the purposes of suсh.
Judgment affirmed.
Petition for rehearing and modification by -appellant overruled.