Court Opinion

ID: 9766284
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:39:07.528664+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:21.008182
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
We withdraw the statement made in our original Opinion that the witness Lowry testified that he watched while a tornado “also struck an outhouse on appellees’ property.” In lieu thereof, we quote from the testimony of Lowry, given in connection with his evidence of seeing two tornadoes move inland from the west, and of watching while one took the sides off the building at the airport, and damaged the Alcorn house, as follows:
“Q. Do you know the house west of Alcorn’s ?
A. I believe Mr. Christianson’s.
Q. Was there any water around there ?
A. No, sir.
Q. Was it beginning to peel?
A. No, sir.
Q. Was it beginning to break?
A. His pump house was beginning to break when I left.”
On cross-examination:
“Q. All you saw, then, of the Chris-tianson house of any damage was their pump house?
A. That was blowing apart when I was there.
Q. And then you left?
A. I left.”
% % % jfc
*66“Q. When you saw the funnels coming down, the only damage to the Chris-tianson home was the pump house?
A. That is all I could see at the time.”
In withdrawing from our opinion the specific statement mentioned above, we find no occasion to alter the views expressed by us. We have carefully considered all of the points set forth in appellant's motion for rehearing, and remain of the opinion that the judgment of the trial court should be reformed and affirmed. The said motion is overruled.