Court Opinion

ID: 9834298
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:28:09.443735+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:22:12.296133
License: Public Domain

On Motion of Appellant for a Rehearing.
The contention in the motion, that this court erred in holding, in effect, -that the jury had a right to consider the speed of the train in determining whether appellánt was guilty of negligence or not in failing to have a flag-1 man, gate, or gong at the crossing to warn travelers on the public road of the approach of a train, is sustained. But we think the other matters referred to as relevant to that issue authorized its submission to the jury. The contention that it appeared from other testimony of the witness Shaddix that, when he said there was “a continuous passing of the crossing,” he did not mean the flow of trafie was never broken, and from other testimony of the witness Hess that he did not mean that when he said people were “passing that road continually in the daytime,” also is sustained. But we think the jury had a right to say that the testimony of those witnesses as to the use made .'of the crossing, construed as a whole and in connection with testimony as to the position of the Fertilizer building, showed the crossing to be an unusually dangerous one.
The motion is overruled.