Court Opinion

ID: 9653978
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 18:00:42.638906+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:04.209187
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing
STONE, Judge.
Believing, as we do, that there can be no excuse for factual misstatement or inaccuracy, these supplemental comments are prompted by plaintiff’s motion for rehearing which charges, in substance and effect, that we have misinterpreted, if not misstated, the evidence. Plaintiff presses her contention that Ormsbee turned to the left or east when his automobile was about one hundred fifty feet north of the driveway, but the final account of witness Kelm on this subject is reflected in the following testimony:
“A. Mr. Ormsbee was driving on the right at the time he made the left hand turn.
“Q. Well, how far from his driveway were you then?
“A. About twenty-five feet.
“Q. About twenty-five feet?
“A. When he turned, first turned over.”
On the more important and essentially determinative issue as to the location of the Batson automobile with respect to the Ormsbee automobile when Ormsbee first turned to the left or east, plaintiff now asserts that, when witness Kelm stated that the Batson automobile was “somewhere along about the side of” the Ormsbee automobile or that the front end of the Bat-son automobile was “about the middle of his (Ormsbee’s) car” or “somewhere along in front of the hind wheels” or “something about the back end” of that vehicle, Kelm was (in the language of plaintiff’s counsel) “referring to the point of impact at all times.” But, witness these representative excerpts from Kelm’s testimony:
“A. We got up by the side of him (Ormsbee) and then when we got on up further, just started to go around him, Mr. Ormsbee turned to the left across the road.”
* * * * * *
“A. Mr. Batson’s car, the front end of his was something about the back end (of the Ormsbee automobile) when he (Ormsbee) first started turning over, but we hit him in the front end of his car.”
******
“Q. Where was your (Batson’s) car with relation to Mr. Ormsbee’s car when you say he (Ormsbee) pulled to the left?
“A. We was somewhere along about the side of it.
“Q. The side of it?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. Where was the front end of your car with relation to the front end of Mr. Ormsbee’s car?
“A. When they hit?
“Q. When he (Ormsbee) pulled to the left?
“A. Well, the front end of our car was about the middle of his car.”
And, in their statement of “the evidence in its most favorable light” to their client, plaintiff’s counsel wrote in their brief that “at the time the front end of the Batson *686car in the left hand land (sic) came about even with the rear end of the Ormsbee car * * * the Ormsbee car started to turn left across the center .line.”
In her motion for rehearing, plaintiff for the first time seeks to use defendant Ormbée’s testimony as to speed and distances; but, in her brief, plaintiff skimmed over Ormsbee’s testimony with nothing more than this curt summary in the statement of facts: “The defendant Ormsbee testified that after he pulled across the center line he never looked back. He stated there was. no other traffic coming north and .no other automobiles involved in the immediate vicinity of the collision.- He testified he never heard brakes squealing on the deceased Batson’s motor vehicle or the horn blowing.” Since the evidentiary theory developed by Ormsbee’s testimony was contradictory of and at war with plaintiff’s' evidentiary theory [Napier v. Ferris, supra, 159 S.W.2d loc. cit. 366-367; Fisher v. Gunn, supra, 270 S.W.2d loc. cit. 873-874], and since plaintiff’s counsel apparently so recognized and, in their presentation on appeal, made no reference to Ormsbee’s estimates as to speed and distances, we did not detail his evidence in our original opinion. Suffice it to say now that plaintiff would not be aided by anything in her adversary’s evidence, of which she might avail herself.
Careful reconsideration again leads to the conclusion, inescapable to us, that plaintiff did not make a submissible case under the humanitarian doctrine. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for rehearing or, in the alternative, to transfer is overruled.
, McDO.WELL, P. J., and RUARIC, J„ concur.