Court Opinion

ID: 9743148
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:26:33.08284+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:39.647364
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING OPINION
Royse, C. J.
— I agree with the majority opinion that this case should be reversed because the instruction set out in their opinion was mandatory and wholly ignored the element of proximate cause. In my opinion this was all that it was necessary or proper for us to decide. Section 2-3233, Burns’ 1946 Replacement, providing in part as follows: “The Supreme Court may reverse or affirm the judgment below, in whole or in part, and remand the cause to the court below, but the court shall not reverse the proceedings any further than to inchide the first error.” (My emphasis).
I cannot agree with the following statement in their opinion:
“The undisputed evidence in this case discloses that the appellee was bitten in the early morning after the appellants’ tavern had been closed to the public and whereby it lost its character as a public place. In our opinion a construction of *368the ordinance that, brings such a set of facts within its scope is erroneous.”
No authority is cited in support of this statement. I do not believe it is a correct statement of the law applicable to the facts as shown by the record herein.
Wiltrout, J., concurs in this opinion.
Note. — Reported in 92 N. E. 2d 734.