Court Opinion

ID: 9810173
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:42:41.582916+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:39:27.313861
License: Public Domain

Stacy, J.,
concurring: The record presents several serious exceptions; but, upon a careful investigation, it seems to me that they may 'be resolved in favor of the validity of the trial, without doing violence to any legal principle. For this reason, I concur in the result.
The question as to whether the trial court erred in charging the jury that “the defendants in this case were not negligent in not having or maintaining an automatic or other bell, gong, gate, or watchman at the crossing at which the plaintiff’s testator was killed,” because not required by statute, is not before us for decision. This instruction was given at the request of the defendants, and, of course, it forms the basis of no exception on the present record. The plaintiff alone could object to the instruction, and she is not appealing.