Court Opinion

ID: 9827395
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:29:47.163817+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:30.247811
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
In its motion for rehearing .appellant contends that we were in error in stating that the evidence was conflicting as to whether the brakeman, John Poole, who was injured, was on the end of the last car or on the north side of it, standing in the stirrup when the collision occurred. We were not in error in so stating. True, Poole and several other witnesses testified that he was standing on the stirrup as the train approached the crossing, and no witness testified directly that he was on the front of the car. But it is shown without dispute that plaintiff’s automobile was pushed more than 100 feet by the train, and that when the train stopped Poole was fastened between the automobile and the freight car so that the train had to be pulled forward away from the automobile in order to release him.
The point is immaterial except that in connection with the issues of contributory negligence, which the jury found against it, defendant insists that plaintiff ran into the side of the train. Plaintiff’s testimony that the train struck his automobile is corroborated by two disinterested eye witnesses, Emmett Lane and W. D. Chandler. The latter testified positively that the drawhead on the freight car was driven into the body of the automobile behind the right door. And Poole himself stated “I guess the (freight) car struck his (plaintiff’s) car.”
The motion for rehearing is in all things overruled.