Court Opinion

ID: 9762284
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:18:57.165444+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:32.854532
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing
PER CURIAM:
In his motion for a rehearing or, in the alternative, to transfer this cause to the Supreme Court, plaintiff complains that we overlooked certain evidence favorable to the plaintiff. We believe that in the opin*640ion it was made abundantly clear that the accident involved an almost-escaping situation, but so that there may be no doubt regarding the facts we quote at length defendant’s testimony as read from his deposition:
“Q (By plaintiff’s counsel) What part of your car struck this lad?
“A The left front bumper.”
“And on page 11 at the bottom (reading):
“Q When you say he was struck with the left front bumper, the impact came from the front of your car, I assume; it was the front bumper? Some of these bumpers are wrap-around bumpers. Did you strike him with the front of your bumper ?
“A No, the side.
“Q Right at the very corner of the automobile ?
“A Yes, sir.
“Q With your hitting him at the very corner of the automobile and not proceeding on past him, would it be a fair statement to say that you just barely avoided hitting him; is that right, you came within a very minute second and space of time and distance' from hitting the boy?
“A Yes.
“Q Was he running at the time he was hit?
“A Yes.
“Q And did he run from the time you first saw him up until the time he was hit?
“A Yes.
“Q He didn't stop or hesitate or anything?
“A No.”
Plaintiff also takes exception to our statement that “there is no evidence in the record as to plaintiff’s height” (Emphasis ours.), and points to that part of the transcript showing that plaintiff stood by the jury rail and exhibited the injury to his lip and mouth. All that the transcript reveals is that there was a jury rail, and that plaintiff was tall enough to be seen over it. But the record does not indicate the height of the rail, nor the distance, great or small, which plaintiff rose above it. Are we to be expected to speculate therefrom that plaintiff was tall enough to be seen over the hood of a parked car — or truck ?
Lastly, plaintiff contends that we are compelled to take judicial notice that a four-lane residential street in the City of St. Louis is at least 36 feet wide. We note, in passing, that plaintiff has reduced the width from the 40 feet originally mentioned in his brief. To take judicial notice that the minimum width of such a street is 36 feet would be directly contrary to our personal knowledge of the many four-lane streets in residential areas of St. Louis which are narrower than the figure contended for by plaintiff.
The gist of plaintiff’s charge of negligence was the alleged failure of defendant to maintain such a lookout as would have enabled him to have observed plaintiff in time to have avoided the accident. The burden was on plaintiff to produce evidence that he was in a position to have been seen had the defendant looked. Absent such evidence we" cannot supply the deficiency by speculation, conjecture, or unwarranted judicial assumptions.
Plaintiff’s motion for a rehearing or, in the alternative, to transfer this cause to the Supreme Court, is overruled.
RUDDY, P. J., and WOLFE and ANDERSON, JJ., concur.