Court Opinion

ID: 9775587
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:04:18.620969+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:29.168357
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING
In its motion for rehearing, appellee asserts that Mr. Albuquerque testified only that the pole he used did not have a hook or pulling device, and that therefore there is no evidence that the pole used by his companion did not have such a hook.
Mr. Albuquerque testified in part as follows:
“ . . . I saw these aluminum poles there, and I picked one up, ... I picked up another one and gave it to Joe, and both of us then pushed This took some time, I don’t know how much, but it took seconds or minutes to do this because the poles, of course, they are long and aluminum, and we use them to push, not pull, because there was no way to get ahold.” (SF224)
* * * * * *
“ . . . Joe and I, we both used the poles, one on each side of the pool . . . (SF225)
******
“Q. Did that pole you talked about have a hook on it ?”
“A. No, sir.”
“Q. Had it had a hook on it, could you have placed it down into the water, hooked onto the body and pulled him out?”
“A. The hook on the end of the pole would make a speedier recovery of the boy . . .
“Q. . . . had there been a pole with a hook, you could have least made it easier for you?”
“A. I would say it would make a speedier recovery.” (SF239)
We believe a reasonable interpretation of Albuquerque’s testimony is that neither pole had a hook or pulling device. Of course, there was other testimony about poles. One witness testified that there was no pole at all at the pool except a wooden stick about ten feet long. Another witness testified that there was one pole about five feet long which did not have any hook. The motel manager testifed that a “shepherd’s crook” was a part of the equipment kept by the motel and that it was in the pool area when Ned Harris drowned. Mr. Nagy testified that the morning after the drowning he inspected the pool and found “the shepherd’s hook” pole, which had been bent, but Mr. Albuquerque testified that the pole he used was the one which was bent in the rescue attempt. These were simply conflicts in the testimony which only the jury could resolve and the adverse portions of which we must disregard in determining the propriety of a directed verdict against appellant.
The motion for rehearing is respectfully overruled.