Court Opinion

ID: 9814052
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 23:31:49.723399+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:33:38.361979
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
Decided D>ec 21, 1932
BY THE COURT
Counsel for the plaintiff in error have filed a motion for a rehearing. This motion among other things makes the statement that the court did not pass upon all the errors assigned and specifically that it did not pass upon whether the verdict was against the manifest weight of evidence. We are of the opinion that we did pass upon whether the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence, but if we did not in the original opinion we now make the finding that the verdict is not. against the manifest weight of the evidence and that there are no errors for which the judgment should be reversed. Counsel makes the claim in their application for rehearing that there was evidence from which the jury may have found that the accident happened at 6:15 and that no lights were required under the statute. But even if this is true the evidence clearly shows that the lights were upon both cars. There is some evidence tending to prove that the lights upon the tool box were burning dimly, and that darkness required the lights so that even if there is some testimony tending to show that the accident happened about 6:15 or 6:30, it is clearly apparent from the entire record that it must have been later and that the lights must have been required. There was no request that the trial court give, a charge that the jury must consider the evidence that the accident occurred at any earlier time than 7:00 o’clock nor was any special objection taken as to the statement of time.
We have carefully re-examined all the errors assigned and reach the conclusion that there is no prejudicial error and that the judgment should be affirmed. The motion for rehearing must, therefore, be overruled.
ALLREAD, PJ, HORNBECK and KUNKLE, JJ, concur.