Court Opinion

ID: 9832798
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:12:37.77925+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:52.873531
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
It is apparent that the trial court inadvertently referred the jury to the wrong number of a paragraph of the charge or definitions, by reason of which the jury were told that negligence on the part of the conductor would consist of the failure to exercise ordinary care, instead of a failure to exercise that high degree of care that a railroad owes to its passengers; and appellant argues that but for this error the jury might have found that the conductor was guilty of negligence. He also contends that article 2061, R. S., does not apply where a case is submitted on sper cial issues. For the present we express no opinion on this point, but if this be conceded, and it be further conceded that the jury not only might, but would, have found that the conductor was guilty of negligence, the error of the court cannot work a reversal herein, for the reason that, the jury having found that the appellant’s wife was guilty of negligence which proximately contributed to her injury, and that her peril was not discovered by the conductor, and the evidence being sufficient to support these findings, no other judgment could properly have been rendered except that which was rendered, viz., for the defendant.
Motion overruled.