Court Opinion

ID: 9833736
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:58:47.332347+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:41:47.991310
License: Public Domain

On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant insists that its contention that the defect in the couplers was not a proximate cause of the accident was not based alone on the view that negligence on the part of appellee was the sole cause thereof, but also on the view that at the time the accident occurred appellee, having adjusted the couplers, was “engaged in an entirely distinct and different undertaking, to wit, that of lining up the drawbar, and that his injuries were due to the fact that he lined up the drawbar with his foot while the cars were in motion”; and insists further that this court did not determine its contention so far as it was predicated on the latter view. We were of the opinion, and are yet, that “draw-bars,” as was said by the Illinois Supreme Court, “are a part of the coupling device” (Davis v. Ry. Co., 294 Ill. 355, 128 N. E. 539), and therefore, if it was necessary to go between the cars to “line up” drawbars of the cars in question before the couplers would couple automatically by impact, that the contention was not tenable (Alabama & V. R. Co. v. Dennis, 128 Miss. 298, 91 South. 4).
The motion is overruled.