Court Opinion

ID: 9828748
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:41:28.802184+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:52.645305
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[8] In a very elaborate and able - motion for rehearing appellant, among other things, urges that this court was in error in finding as a fact that appellant’s switching crew, on the occasion of appellee’s injuries, knew, and, under the manner in which trains were made up in said yards, was charged with knowledge, that appellee at the time of the collision was engaged in his work in coupling up the air hose of the cars collided with. This finding was in deference to the findings of the jury on special issues No-s. 1, 2, and 3 submitted by the court. While there was evidence to the contrary, this finding is amply suported by the testimony of appellee and the testimony of two of appellant’s switching crew. Appellee’s testimony is very positive that for 12 or 13 years he had worked for appellant in the same capacity, and during all this time “the usual method was coupling the air as trains were made up.”
felly, the foreman of the switching crew, testified, in effect, that appellee’s part of the work of making up the train was coupling up the air, and he did this as the train was being made up.
Barr, another member of the switching crew, testified that it was appellee’s business tó couple the air; that he did not see appel-lee at the moment of the collision, but knew that that was his work, and when he heard him “holloa” he had reason to believe it was appellee who was injured, as he supposed he was down that way somewhere, that being where his place was.
*1081The above statement of .testimony from the record is amply sufficient to sustain the finding of fact about Which complaint is made. In fact, when the testimony hearing on this issue is considered as a whole', together with the circumstances surrounding the unfortunate accident, we think the conclusion is inevitable that the switching crew knew that appellant was engaged in his work of coupling up the air hose during the time the train was being made up and at the time of the collision of the cars and train that resulted in appellee’s injury.
Complaint is also made that the court ignored the assignment of error based on the argument of counsel for appellee. This assignment was carefully considered, and the conclusion reached that it was without merit, and to this conclusion the court adheres.- All the other matters raised by the motion for rehearing have been carefully considered, and are overruled.
The motion for rehearing is denied.