Court Opinion

ID: 9830654
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:21:52.485397+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:25.312568
License: Public Domain

On Appellant’s Second Motion for Rehearing.
[5] Appellant insists that our decision on first [appellee’s] motion for rehearing is erroneous, in that it appears from the verdict of the jury that some of the injury to the horses was occasioned by their being shipped in a box car, and that, therefore, the damage should be apportioned. This would be correct, if a part of the injury arose solely from the shipment being in a box car, and a part solely from the condition of the pens. Such, however, is not the fact in the instant case. No injury would have occurred by reason of the shipment being made in a box car, but for the heated condition of the horses when loaded. This condition would not have existed but for the condition of the pens.
It is true that appellee assumed the risk arising from the use of a box car, but this was, as a matter of law, predicated upon the supposition that appellant would not be guilty of some act of negligence, which would cause the use of a box car to injure the horses, without which no injury would have occurred.
Motion overruled.
Overruled.