Court Opinion

ID: 9828820
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:45:50.897772+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:53.501952
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In plaintiff in error’s motion for rehearing, among other things, it is insisted that the court erred in its conclusion that the evidence justified the belief that, when Mrs".. Hallum alighted from the car, and fell, she was under the observation or could have been seen by the two men whose statement the jury requested. We have given the record a very careful re-examination, but fail to find any reason to change the meaning and import of the 'comment made in the original opinion in regard to this point.
■ Mrs. Hallum, in describing the circumstances of receiving the injuries complained of, said:
“All of a sudden the motorman started the car, and threw, me to the street, and the next thing I knew I was lying on the sidewalk, and two men were standing over me. * * *■ I do not know who these other two men were. * * * I know that I was hurt, and these men picked me up out of the street and laid me on the sidewalk. * * * These two men that picked me up, and laid me over there on the sidewalk picked me up and put me in a car and took me home. * * * I do not know whether at the time that I started to get off the street ear before the accident the automobile with the two gentlemen that carried me home was in sight or not. I did not see the automobile.”
I. E. Bartlett, a passenger on the street car at the time and an eyewitness, said:
“When the car had stopped and the lady had fallen it seems to me, now, from the best of my recollection, that there was an automobile that run up pretty close to her. * * * There was an automobile there, and it had stopped ■ for the car to stop, and, of course, when it started the automobile started. The car and the automobile were both heading east. The automobile stopped for the car, and it must have been behind the car, because it pulled up right even with the street car; I suppose that the automobile had tried to pass the car. I could not say whether the automobile hit the lady or not, but they were right close together. When the street car stopped I think that the automobile was just a little in behind the street car. I do not know where the automobile was when the car stopped the first time. The first that I noticed of the automobile it had stopped. It could not have been but a second or two after the lady fell until the automobile drove up there. You might say I saw the lady and the automobile at the same time, right together, or about the same time. I think that the way she fell she would be right in front of any automobile that happened to be on that side of the street. Just as she fell the automobile was there and the lady was there.”
From this testimony, and other- relevant circumstances, we concluded, as stated in the original opinion, that—
“The evidence justifies the belief that Mrs. Hallum,. while alighting from the car ' and at the time she fell, was under the observation or could have been seen by these two men; in other words, that ,they were eyewitnesses to the accident, and could have given- evidence on the vital issue of liability, that is, as to whether Mrs. Hallum was thrown from the car step as testified to by her, or whether she alighted safely and afterwards fell in the street, as the evidence introduced by plaintiff in error tended to show.”
After carefully examining and considering plaintiff in error’s motion for rehearing, we fail to find any reason why the judgment heretofore rendered should be set aside; therefore the same is hereby in all things overruled.
Overruled.