Court Opinion

ID: 9830050
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:50:37.022615+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:11.717649
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In their motion for rehearing appellees earnestly contend that the opinion in this case is in conflict with the opinion of the Galveston Court of Civil Appeals in the case of Graham v. Hines et al., 240 S. W. 1015. To this contention we cann'ot agree. In the reported case the court held that where a motorcycle driver was acting with proper care in approach of track at crossing until he discovered approach of train, and then became so frightened and terrorized on discovery of train by reason of the railroad’s negligence that he was incapable of rational and prudent action with reference to avoiding the collision, his failure to' exercise ordinary care under the circumstances did not preclude recovery for injuries. This holding of the court is based upon an unchallenged finding of the jury that the motorcycle driver, plaintiff in the suit, was observing ordinary care for his own safety until, by reason of the negligence of the operatives of the train, he became so frightened and terrorized that he was incapable of rational and prudent action. The motorcycle driver was on a public thoroughfare and approaching a public crossing on the railroad. No want of ordinary care could be charged against him for being in the public highway with the intent of using said crossing. In the instant case, the deceased had voluntarily taken his position between a main track and a switching track at a place where a train passing ’ on the main track would render hs position hazardous. The jury by a finding exonerated the deceased from negligence tTecause of the position in which he had placed himself. This finding was challenged because unsupported by evidence and contrary to affirmative evidence in the case. It is undisputed that the deceased had voluntarily placed himself in a position which would become exceedingly perilous if a train passed on th£ main track ■while he was in such position; that deceased had placed himself in such position at a time when a regular, scheduled passenger train was due to pass on the main track and would not stop at the station unless signaled to do so; and that any precaution in looking out for the coming of the train would have resulted in deceased’s knowledge of its coming in time to have extricated himself with safety from such position. This court felt impelled to sustain the assignment of error challenging the finding of the .jury in this respect.
We are therefore of the conclusion that there is no conflict between this case and the reported case, and the motion for rehearing is overruled.