Sealey

Plaintiff sued for damage to Ms oil well, based upon negligence of the defendant, who had been hired by plaintiff’s employee Baker, to clean sand from the liner of the well and replace the tubing, rods and pump. It was claimed defendant failed to use safety elevators in the latter stages of pulling the tubing and rods from the well, as *278 was customary, resulting in damage to the well when the gas anchor dropped. Defendant denied negligence and urged, affirmatively, contributory negligence of Baker which would bar recovery. The ease was tried without a jury. The trial court concluded both defendant and Baker were negligent and judgment was entered for defendant, from which plaintiff has appealed contending that there were no findings of contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff and therefore the conclusion that plaintiff’s ease was barred by Baker’s negligence was without foundation.

Although the court did not expressly state in the findings that Baker was guilty of contributory negligence, such express statement is not essential (Dalzell v. County of Los Angeles, 88 Cal.App.2d 271, 275 [ 198 P.2d 554 ]), and such finding was necessarily included in the other findings.…