282 OCTOBER TERM, 1907. Oplnion of the Courk 209 U.S. ?urther protection. When the high water returned, as it did st the 'time of the injury, there was ngain a giving wsy of the bridge. From this general outline of the ease (filled, of course, more in detail by the testimony as to the circumstances of the work and the injury) it is apparent that there was a question whether the defendant had made suitable provision for se- curing a safe structure upon which the trains should pass; and upon a review of all the testimony we do not feel that we are justified in disturbing the verdict, approved as it was by the Oklahoma courts. Thirdly, it is insisted that the plaintiff was guilty of con- tributory negligence, in that when the engine moved on to the bridge, at the time of the injury, t[?e enghleer s/fid to him that he need not stay on the en?ne, but might go back on the train. But h/s place of work was in the engine, the same as that of the engineer, and because he did not avail himself of the suggestion and leave that place it can hardly be said that he was guilty of contributory negligence. He stayed at his regular place of work and where his ordinsry duty called him to be, and it would be a harsh rule to hold that a man so doing was guilty of contributory negligence, because he did not avail himself of a permission to occupy a different and perhaps a safer place; especially as both the engineer and himseft were advised by the construction force that the bridge was safe. These are all the matters that call for notice. We find no error in the rulings of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, and its judgment is .�
�
