Court Opinion

ID: 9743142
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:26:28.505852+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:39.629147
License: Public Domain

*507ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Wiltrout, J.
— Appellant in her petition for rehearing insists that we erred in holding that no objection was made to appellee’s instruction No. 13 as modified. We find a statement in the special bill of exceptions that appellant stated and dictated her specific objection to appellee’s tendered instruction No. 13 as tendered by the appellee, and as modified by the court in the form in which it was given. The objection set forth is that: “The plaintiff objects to defendant’s tendered instruction number thirteen for the reason that ‘sober man’ does not indicate a legal degree of care, that is to say the care. exercised by an ordinary prudent person in like circumstances.”
Only one objection appears in the special bill of exceptions, and the wording of the objection states that it is to defendant’s tendered instruction No. 13. The objection is to words used in the instruction as tendered, and which words were not in the instruction as modified and given.
As stated in our original opinion, “The only objection urged to the instruction is one which is not applicable to the instruction as given.”
The petition for rehearing is denied.
Note. — Reported in 93 N. E. 2d 202.