?0 O?TOB?.R TI?.M, 1907. Ksm?_?, 72; ? v. ?, ? ? 773. ? ?in for ?de?ion ? ?: o?, ?e ?n- ?n?on ? ?he p? w?a ?eHow? ? ?e fo? of t? ? at work on ?e b? ?d the ??t of ?m?etion; ?other, the qumfion of n?n? on ? of the defen?t; ?d s t?, ?nt6bu? n?. ?th mfemn? ? ?e ?t, it m?t ? ?me ? ?d ?t ?e p?- ? wms ?n employ? on a l?mofive, md ? work ? M a ? de?ent from t?t of the employ& en- ? M the ?m?ction of ?e b?d?. ? ? not s ? for the apportion of the d?t?e of fellowlet. It wo?d ? ?t doctrine ? f? ? hold tMt one employ? ?mgn ?d e? in the movement of s t?n wm ? fellow- ?t ?th ?e su?6n?dent of mintruction ?d the fo? ? of a b6d? ?, ?th of whom'were p?t ?d e? in su?i? ?d ?ti? the work on ?e b6d?. Th? ?t?r employ& mp?n? the p?ci? in ? en?ly ?f- femnt ?ne of emplo?ent from tMt in wMch the p?ntiff ?m e?, were d? a ?five duty of the ?r ? pm?de a ?fe ?d sui?ble p? ?d st?ct? in ?d u?n w?ch i? employ& were ? do their work--Un? P? ? Co. v. O'B?, 161 U.S. ?1, ?d ? ci? in the opi?on?d in di?r? t?t ?tive duty. ?ey ?d not he we? the ?p?n?fiv? of the defend?t. The? ?tion, ? f? ? t?t work w?' ?n?m?, w? the ?tion of the d? fen?nt. With refe?n? ? the ?nd quition, t?t of neg?n? on the part of the defen?t, it m?t ? p? t?t t? largely a question of f?t, ?d a quition of f?t is sub?t? ? the decision of a ju?. Not?t?nding the able ?ment of ?u?e] for defendant in end?vofi? ? show t?t the d? fendant did everything t?t prudence requir? for the p? of making the bridge ?fe, we are not ?tisfi? t?t the mony is so convincing in th? reset ? ? j?tify ? in ?tting ?ide the verdict of the jury, approved ? it w? by the t?
�
