Court Opinion

ID: 9828153
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:09:11.82165+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:44.728093
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellee, in her motion for rehearing, among other things, complains that this court, in its former opinion, used this language: “The members of the train crew claim that the engine bell was continually ringing, while switching was being done, and at the time of the injury.”
[6] While this statement was made in the original opinion only as a means of calling attention to the fact that there was an issue of fact raised by the evidence introduced by appellant and appellee on the question of whether or not the bell was being rung, and we think the statement cannot possibly do appellee any injury, we will withdraw that statement, and here state succinctly the facts as shown by the evidence on that issue as follows: The father of appellee testified in substance that the bell was not ringing either when the accident occurred or at any time while he and his daughter were on the yards, while the fireman testified, in substance, that the bell was ringing not only when the accident occurred, but during the entire time the switching was in progress. No other witness testified on this issue, though a sworn statement formerly made by the engineer to the same effect as the fireman’s evidence is found in the record.
Our former opinion is in no way or particular based on any supposed negligence of Halys Wininger, or of her father, but is based on the proposition that as we view the record in its entirety, the evidence fails to raise an issue of negligence on the part of the company or its employes, in any particular charged in appellee’s pleadings, that could have caused the injury complained of.
If it were admitted that the employes were guilty of negligence, both in failing to keep an e5re on appellee and her father at all times while they were on the yard, and in failing to continually ring the bell, in the light of the other evidence found in the record, we think, neither of. said acts can be held to in any way have had any thing to do with the injury complained of, for the reasons that the record, without controversy, shows that the train was continually in motion during all the time appellee and her father were on the yards, and that appellee and her father knew this fact, and ringing the bell could have served no purpose except to inform appellee and her father of the fact that the train was in motion, or was about to be put in motion; and we also think the record conclusively shows that had every employ® been looking at appellee and her father, immediately before and at the time they started to cross the track, where appel-lee was injured, because of the suddenness of their turning and attempting to cross said track, it was impossible for appellant to have done anything to avoid said injury.
In deference to the earnestness and ability with which appellee’s counsel has urged a rehearing in this case, we have again carefully gone over the record, but finding no merit in' the motion, except as indicated herein, the motion will be overruled, and it is so ordered.