Opinion ID: 2325046
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: On Petition for Re-argument

Text: Plaintiffs in their petition for re-argument raise several questions, only one of which needs to be commented on here. Plaintiffs deny categorically the statement in our opinion that they conceded that defendant was not guilty of negligence from the time the child ran into the street. The statement relative to plaintiffs' concession is in accordance with the facts proven at the trial. There was no evidence whatsoever of negligence on the part of defendant after the child ran into the street. The statement in our opinion to which counsel for plaintiffs take exception is predicated upon the following language found in plaintiffs' brief, page 20: Conceding that Mrs. Mead did all she could to avoid striking Katie after she saw her in the street   , and, in addition, to the statement by counsel in his argument before this Court. Plaintiffs' petition for re-argument is denied. We are, somewhat reluctantly, compelled to take notice of the intemperate language used by counsel for plaintiffs in their petition for re-argument. We consider the use of such language highly improper and not in keeping with the respectful attitude which counsel owes to the Court and which is so necessary to the orderly administration of justice. We trust that this offense will not be repeated.