Court Opinion

ID: 9832829
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:14:00.643579+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:41.678769
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The refused charge mentioned in the sixth assignment of error is as follows: “You are further charged, gentlemen, that if, at the time of the accident, plaintiff failed to go about the matter, either in the arrangement of the coupling appliances or in giving signals, or in going between the cars, as a person of ordinary care would have done under all the circumstances; that is, if he did, with respect to any of such matters, what an ordinarily prudent person would have done, or if he omitted to do what a person of ordinary prudence would have done about the matter under similar circumstances, and if any such acts or omissions, if there were any, either caused or contributed to his injuries, he cannot recover, and this would be true, even though the cars, coupling, and appliances were defective, as charged.”
The reason given by us in the main opinion for overruling the assignment is not satisfactory to us, because, if it had been given, the sense of the charge would have been understood.
*101[7] By the charge appellant grouped three acts of negligence: (1) Negligence of plaintiff in the arrangement of the coupling appliances ; (2) in the matter of signals; and (3) in going between the cars. We find that, in the charges given by the court, the two last-named matters were specifically submitted in reference to contributory negligence. Therefore, if there was any error in refusing the special charge, it must be because the court failed to submit defendant’s negligence specifically in the first of the above forms, viz., in the “arrangement of the coupling appliances.”
[8] Appellant fails in the statement in the brief to mention any facts upon which a charge upon that theory could have been based. For .these reasons the assignment should not he sustained.
Motion overruled.