Court Opinion

ID: 9824731
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 11:11:58.364107+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:00.233641
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Complaint is made that it is unfair to appellant to affirm the case on the theory that there was evidence that the statutory signals were not given, because the case was not tried on that theory.. But we observe that this discussion in the opinion only related to the correctness of given charge 5A, which referred to an absence of such signals. The law pertaining to them was due therefore to be discussed as determining whether the case should be reversed for the giving of that charge. The judgment was not affirmed on a theory not tried, but the effect of that charge was then under discussion. We think the discussion was proper in connection with that charge. The parties on both sides offered evidence on that question, and the *606charge given.was predicated on such evidence, and was within the issues in the pleading, though not so expressly named in the complaint.
This court has followed the principle that the evidence of one in a position to hear a train bell and who does not hear it is some evidence that it was not rung. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. York, 128 Ala. 305, 30 So. 676 (12).
We are not here concerned with the weight of such evidence, for that was left to the jury by that charge. Cases which deal with its weight have no application. Kennedy’s Heirs v. Kennedy’s Heirs, 2 Ala. 571.
The application for rehearing is overruled.
ANDERSON, C. J., and GARDNER and BOULDIN, JJ., concur.