Court Opinion

ID: 9675634
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:59:57.106514+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:36.133755
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING
Able counsel for the appellants charges in his brief suppporting his application for rehearing that there is no testimony upon which to base a finding made in our original opinion. There, we stated that, “ . . . the employee’s instructions were, in effect, to take a specifically prescribed route in order to deliver the newly purchased automobile to the car lot in Cull-man.”
While another choice of words would perhaps be more appropriate, the following testimony found on pages 33-34 of the record is the basis for our statement:
“Q Would you tell the court what Mr. Whitten told you ?
“A He came up to me and asked me how he was.
“Q How your husband was ?
*303“A Yes, sir, and then I said ‘The doctor told me that he was going to die, that there’s no chance for him.’ And he said, ‘Oh, my God; it’s all my fault.’ And I said, ‘Well, John, why do you say this?’ and he said, ‘because I told him to come back that way, to drive the car home and bring it to work the next day, and had I not told him this, he wouldn’t have been at the place of the accident.’ ”
There is also a not inconsiderable amount of additional'testimony substantially identical to the above.
OPINION EXTENDED; APPLICATION FOR REHEARING OVERRULED.
WRIGHT, P. J., and BRADLEY, J., concur.