Court Opinion

ID: 9832330
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:49:29.453812+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:45.692840
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
No representative of the shipper accompanied the cattle in transit, and the shipper was therefore without means of knowing or showing the time, manner, or condition in which the cattle were transported and delivered by the carrier. The burde.n of ¡such showing, therefore, rested upon the carrier.
It was shown that the cattle were delivered to the carrier in good shipping condition and in apparent sound health; / that they were seriously delayed in transit by the carrier; that some of them died, an'd others were injured in transit;
The carrier gave no satisfactory explanation of the slow movem'eiit, made no showing of the character of handling of the, cattle during the long delays at stations, en route.
 The only affirmative defense urged by the carrier was that the loss among the cattle was due to the dipping process. The jury found against that defense. We held in the original disposition that that finding was contrary to the evidence. We conclude upon rehearing that we exceeded our prerogative in so holding, for there was at least some evidence of a material nature from which a jury, being so minded, could resolve that issue against appellant. Upon the surface of the record, this court probably would not have found as the jury did. But that is riot the proper criterion by which to determine the matter on appeal. The question is, Could reasonable minds differ in determining the issue from the evidence adduced? Was there any material evidence to support the jury’s findings? We conclude there was.
The carrier has not in this case successfully rebutted the prima facie case made against it by appellee in showing the cattle delivered to the carrier in good condition, and delivered by the carrier at destination in bad condition. Having failed to meet this' burden, appellant cannot complain because judgment went against it.
.Moreover, the question of appellant’s negligence was fully submitted to the jury upon instructions of which appellant make's no complaint, and through the issues thus submitted the jury found that appellant was negligent, and that such negligence proximately caused the damages complained of. We conclude upon rehearing that the judgment should be affirmed, notwithstanding the possible error complained of in appellant’s fifth proposition, which will be overruled. The objection to trie admission of the evidence there complained of probably went more to its weight than its admissibility, but, in any event, the testimony was negative and unimportant, and its admission could not .have reasonably affected the jury’s findings.
Appellee’s motion for rehearing will be granted and the judgment affirmed.