Scarlett

In this case a rehearing was granted to give consideration to appellant’s several contentions questioning the soundness of the holding of this court.

A further review of the cause leads us to adhere to the conclusions already announced and our former opinion, written by Mr. Justice Seawell, is hereby adopted as a part of this decision. It reads:

Appellant, in its petition for rehearing, suggests that the above holding confuses an action for statutory violation of a Safety Appliance Act with an action for common law negligence.

To understand this contention it should be recalled that plaintiff claimed that in descending the side ladder of appellant’s box car, he slipped upon a diagonal brace rod affixed to the side wall, back of the rungs of the ladder, which slip caused him to fall to the ground and suffer severe injuries. Upon trial of this action he waived any right of recovery for common law negligence and based his claim upon a violation of the provision of the Safety Appliance Act of 1910 to the effect that “all cars requiring secure ladders . . . shall be equipped with such ladders ...” (36 U. S. Stats, at L., p. 298; U. S. C. A., title 45, sec. 11). He relied solely upon…