Court Opinion

ID: 9833228
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:32:57.632681+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:00.742248
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In appellee’s motion for rehearing, our attention has been called to an expression used in the opinion, in which we stated that the motorman testified “that he backed the street car a few inches thinking that it would release, but it did not”. Upon *296re-examination of the record, we find we were in error as to this part of his testimony. He did not testify in his deposition on the matter of his first attempt to back the car, if that was done, as testified to by appellant (plaintiff). The appellant did testify as to the first effort when the car was backed from three to six inches. This being an instructed verdict, we announced the rule concerning the effect of all testimony favorable to the losing party, and our statement should have been confined to the testimony by plaintiff as indicated in the opinion. As pointed out above, the motorman did not testify about the first backward movement of the street car. We think the statement attributed to the motorman would not change the result of our conclusions expressed but in fairness to appellee and the record, we are glad to give appellee the benefit of the correction.
With ,this statement we overrule the motion.