Court Opinion

ID: 9636038
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 14:13:58.046735+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:40.902443
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing
PER CURIAM.
Defendant’s motion for rehearing or to transfer renews contentions presented on original submission and questions certain statements in the opinion. After again carefully reviewing the record and briefs, we conclude counsel has inadvertently overlooked testimony of record and only one contention need be considered.
Defendant states not one scintilla of evidence supports the statements in the opinion that: “Defendant parked his car on the north shoulder of No. 36”; or that: “Defendant was operating a 1952 Plymouth.” There was no direct testimony to this effect. There was, however, affirmative testimony that Perry, walked, took more than one step, out to 2 or more feet onto the pavement, and seemed to be tugging on the *9wire; that the car’s right front bumper, fender and headlight struck Perry and his head struck its channel iron; that his body fell off onto the shoulder, and that the car that struck him stopped west of the driveway. Defendant gave the patrolman a statement at the scene. The patrolman testified to measurements of skid marks on the pavement and his examination of a 1952 Plymouth parked on the north shoulder of the highway, facing west, and which had a dent on the front right side of its hood. The permissible inference is that the patrolman was examining the car that struck the man who was injured in the accident he was investigating.
The motion is overruled.