Court Opinion

ID: 9832659
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:05:22.375897+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:49.951353
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant complains in its motion for rehearing of the fact finding in our opinion herein “that the exhaust pipe was 10 or 15 feet towards the saw from a point opposite the sawyer’s station, and about the same distance to the right and on the opposite side of the track was what is called the stationary board.” This finding would put the stationary board and exhaust pipe 20 or 30 feet apart. There is no evidence in the record to justify a finding that they were as much as 30 feet apart. The evidence is that the stationary board was about 3% feet to the right of the sawyer’s station, and the longest distance given by any witness between the two was 20 'feet.
Complaint is also made of the following finding: “While in this falling or overbalanced position the motion of the carriage brought him (the plaintiff) in contact with the exhaust pipe, which knocked him down on the carriage, his face down, and his left leg hanging off the side of the carriage. While he was in this position the sawyer reversed the carriage and sent it rapidly toward the rear of the track.” This finding is inaccurate in stating that the sawyer reversed the carriage and sent it rapidly towards the rear of the track after appellee had fallen upon the track. The carriage was reversed while ap-pellee was in an overbalanced position, but when he struck the exhaust pipe and was knocked down on the carriage it was then on its way to the rear of the track.
We do not regard these errors in the opinion as material, but make the corrections because we desire the statements to be accurate. We have carefully considered the motion for a rehearing, and do not think it presents any sufficient ground for reversal of our judgment affirming the judgment of the court below. It is therefore overruled.