Court Opinion

ID: 9832114
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:37:45.847513+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:42.201160
License: Public Domain

On Motions for Rehearing and Additional Findings of Fact.
Both parties in this cause have filed motions for rehearing, and in addition thereto the appellant has filed a motion for additional findings of fact.
In our original opinion we said that the issue as to whether or not the crossing was obscured, either wholly or partially, was a question of fact for the jury. As this case is to be reversed, we deem it improper to make a finding that this crossing was obscured, or was not obscured, notwithstanding appellant says it is immaterial to it which way we find. For the same reason, we think it best to express no opinion as to the weight of the testimony on the other findings requested by appellant.
In deference to the two motions for rehearing filed by the parties herein, we have carefully reconsidered our original opinion.
Appellees, in their motion for rehearing, suggest that the special charges should not have been given, because they are, in effect, a general verdict for the defendant, citing under this assignment many authorities.
Worden v. Kroeger, 184 S. W. 584, is more nearly in point than any other case cited. In this case the following special charge was given:
“You are charged that, if you believe from the evidence in this case that the plaintiff had the capacity and opportunity to know and appreciate the dangers in reference to using the machine without a cut-off guide, and if you believe by the exercise of that ordinary circumspection that an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same circumstances he would have known of the dangers in reference to using the machine without a cut-off guide, and he remained in the service of the defendant and used the machine without a cut-off guide, and was injured by reason thereof, and that the same was dangerous as a matter of law, he assumed the risk, and would not be entitled to recover; and, so believing, you must return verdict in favor of the defendant on the issues submitted to you by the court in reference thereto.”
The giving of this charge was held' to be error; the court saying:
“It is improper to submit a special charge calling for .& general verdict, where the case is submitted upon special issues.”
It will be noted that this charge specially directs a verdict for the defendant, if the jury finds affirmatively on the issues submitted in this charge; the charge saying:
“And, so believing, you must return verdict in favor of the defendant on the issues submitted to your by the court in reference thereto.”
*693In this ease the jury are not so instructed. These charges advise the jury how to answer ■questions 6, 7, and 8 if certain facts are found to exist. If this case had been submitted on a general charge, the court would have instructed the jury that the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence, if the facts enumerated in these charges were found to exist.
[12] As stated in our original opinion, the defendant has the right to have grouped and presented to the jury in an affirmative way the facts constituting contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Our Supreme Court holds that this is a valuable right given by our laws to the defendant. It was not the purpose of the Legislature, in providing for special verdicts, to deprive litigants of any substantial and valuable right necessary for the protection of their interests, as the same existed before the passage of this act. These charges only submit to the jury, in an affirmative way, the issues of contributory negligence and proximate cause, and instruct the jury, in an affirmative way, what facts would constitute contributory negligence and proximate cause on the facts before the jury. We believe the appellant was entitled to these charges.
In reversing this case we are expressing no opinion on appellant’s assignment that the verdict for $35,000 is excessive.
.The motion of appellant to find additional facts and both motions for rehearing are in all things overruled.