Court Opinion

ID: 9773100
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:36:52.025002+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:50.068470
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
In their motion for rehearing appellants Robinson and Ramjinsky again urge that there was evidence raising a fact issue as to whether Robinson was a borrower of the Belger vehicle (the truck and trailer) at the time of the injury to James Crowder. They contend that the vehicle would have been moved as a part of the unloading operation, had it not been for Crowder’s injury. Appellants emphasize that the complete operation of unloading the boxcar would not have ended until the boxcar had been pushed over against the other boxcars and that the undisputed evidence shows that, prior to such movement of the boxcar, the truck would have been moved out of the area. However, those facts do not show that such movement of the truck out of the area would have been part of the operation of unloading the boxcar from that vehicle. The undisputed evidence is that once the boxcar had been pushed clear of the truck by use of the bulldozer, the Belger truck driver would have driven the truck and trailer away from the unloading spot, not as a part of the complete operation of unloading the boxcar from that trailer and pushing the boxcar to its final resting place over against other boxcars, but to make room for the next truck and trailer to be moved into that same spot so that another boxcar could be unloaded.
There is evidence that after a boxcar was pushed off of a trailer the Belger truck driver always moved his truck and trailer out of the way before Robinson’s employees pushed the boxcar to its final resting place. Even if it was necessary on this occasion for the truck and trailer to be moved out of the *328way so that the bulldozer could be positioned to push the boxcar to its final destination, that fact does not constitute any evidence that Robinson had possession of the truck and trailer with the right to exercise dominion and control over them as a part of the complete unloading operation.
There being no evidence that Robinson had possession of the Belger vehicle during, and as a part of, the unloading operation, so as to constitute him a “borrower” under the automobile liability insurance policy, appellants’ motion for rehearing is overruled.
Appellants’ motion for rehearing overruled.