Court Opinion

ID: 9656521
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:50:07.974125+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:32.979296
License: Public Domain

COLEMAN, Justice
(concurring specially)-
I concur in the result and in the opinion, except for the possible implication that defendant would be entitled to the affirmative charge if the defect in the dermatome had been a “patent” defect.
The opinion states that . . the defect was latent . . ..” In such a case, it does not seem to me necessary to decide what would be the result in case of a patent defect. The opinion certainly *8does not recite that defendant would be entitled to the affirmative charge if the defect were patent; but, to avoid future misinterpretation, I wish to say that I do not concur in the possible implication that we might reverse if the defect were patent.