Court Opinion

ID: 9769939
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 15:08:45.572623+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:09.305739
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing, or in the Alternative for Transfer to the Court bn Banc
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff, appellant on this appeal, filed a motion for rehearing, or in the alternative for transfer to the court en banc, and a brief in support thereof wherein the same questions presented in the original briefs are reargued. However, in addition thereto, it is charged that in the opinion we inadvertently misstated the evidence.
Plaintiff says he did not discover he had silicosis until 1948. In the motion plaintiff says, “There is no evidence that plaintiff ‘had been totally incapacitated since September, 1945.’ ” The record shows that while plaintiff was on the witness-stand he was asked and he answered the following questions:,
“Q. Now, you became incapacitated, as I understand your testimony, in September 1945 ?
*416“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. And yon have been incapacitated ever since?
“A. That’s right.”
In the reply brief filed by plaintiff’s counsel when the case was submitted to this court, we find the following statement in the argument on the question of plaintiff’s damages: “Since 1945, and until he dies, Farrar’s inability to work costs him in lost salary from $175 to over $200 per month, and he can’t even tend his garden at home to raise vegetables for himself.”
It is needless to add that in the opinion we did not misstate the evidence inadvertently or otherwise. The charge- that we misstated the evidence did not prompt us to file this memorandum. Plaintiff in the motion seems to be under the impression that we ruled that the statute of limitations began to run in September, 1945, because at that time plaintiff had silicosis. So that there may not be any misunderstanding on the question we intended to say, and we think we did so state, that the statute of limitations began to run when plaintiff quit work.. The defendant could not have been guilty of any tortious act affecting plaintiff in his capacity as an employee after he quit work. The authorities reviewed in the opinion support that rule.
The motion for rehearing, or in the alternative to transfer to the court en banc, is overruled.