Brett

This is an action for damages. After trial and verdict for plaintiff the court granted defendants’ motion for a new trial and plaintiff appeals.

The court ordered a new trial “on the ground that the motion for nonsuit should have been granted,. and order denied on all other grounds.” It is contended by appellant that this limits the consideration of this court to the one proposition. The question is not of consequence in this ease for, upon the ground indicated, the court was correct in its ruling. However, the position of appellant in this matter -is contrary to the well-settled rule. (Kauffman v. Maier, 94 Cal. 269 , [ 29 Pac. 481 ] ; Thompson v. California Construction Co., 148 Cal. 35 , [ 82 Pac. 367 ] ; Weisser v. Southern Pacific Co., 148 Cal..426, [ 83 Pac. 439 ].)

The action -was for personal injuries alleged to have been occasioned to plaintiff, an employee of defendant, through the negligence of the latter. The negligence charged consisted in maintaining, in an unguarded condition, upon the second floor of its tannery building, a hole in the floor through which passed a leather belt. The accident to' plaintiff occurred by his stepping with his right leg into the…