Court Opinion

ID: 9832898
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:17:02.39959+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:55.079432
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In their motion for rehearing appellees have pointed out certain inaccuracies of fact appearing in the original opinion. Although deemed immaterial to the decision, those inaccuracies have been corrected in that opinion.
In testing the facts found against appel-lees, it must be remembered that all the evidence tending to support those findings must be taken as true; and, further, that the findings of negligence upon the part of appellant have no bearing upon the findings upon contributory negligence.
So, as there was evidence to support the implied findings (incident to the express findings of the negligence of the decedent) that the movements of the train at and about the point of the accident could be plainly seen and heard^ that evidence must be taken as true, notwithstanding it may have been controverted by other testimony.
This court has not presumed, or inferred, any fact independently of the jury findings upon contributory negligence. The only presumption indulged by this court is the presumption in favor of the jury findings, there being some material evidence to support those findings. It is appellees, and not this court, who are attacking those findings. Appellees, in a very able argument on motion for rehearing, have assembled all the evidence upon the issue, and argue that that evidence did not convict the decedent of negligence; whereas, it was the exclusive province of the jury to weigh that evidence, and give it effect, in accordance with their reason and judgment, under their oaths and the unchallenged instructions of the learned trial judge.
Appellees’ motion will be overruled.