Court Opinion

ID: 9828939
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:52:21.21319+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:55.178485
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant insists that the record does not support the recital in the original opinion to the effect that Mrs. Le May testified that she “saw him lean his head down and come in contact with the carburetor while adjusting the machinery,” and that at the time Edward R. Re May went into the shop after his alleged injury “she said at that time she saw a burnt spot on his right temple.”
We have again examined the statement of facts, and the following is the verbatim testimony of Mrs. Re May with reference to the alleged inaccuracies in our former opinion:
“Mr. Le May received an injury on October 29,1927. About four o’clock in the afternoon on.that day, Mr. Re May was working on an automobile owned by Mr. T. H. Fort, and the automobile was parked at the curb in front of our repair shop at Í412 Commerce Street at the time that Mr. Le May was working on it, and at the time he was injured Mr. Le May was adjusting the carburetor on Mr. Fort’s automobile. While he was adjusting the carburetor, the motor was running, and in some manner, as Mr. Re May leaned over the car, the right side of his forehead or temple came in contact with the ignition coil on the automobile. The automobile on which Mr. Re May was working was parked at 1412 Commerce Street on the west side of the street, the automobile being headed south. As he worked on the automobile, Mr. Re May was on the left side of the car bending over it. At this time I was inside of our repair shop, sitting at a desk in front of a plate glass window just inside from where the car was parked.
“I saw a burned spot on Mr. Re May’s temple about the size of a half a dollar; this spot was red at first, and later turned to a dark hue and continued to be visible for two or three days after the accident. I also saw a burned spot on Mr. Re May’s left hand. Mr. Re May made a remark to me immediately after the accident with reference to his injury. Practically no time elapsed between the time and the making of this remark, as he rushed into the repair shop immediately after the accident and rubbed some cup grease or vaseline on his hand, and while doing so made the remark to me. The remark ■that he made to me was ‘Do not worry about my hand; it is my head that hurts.’ ”
It is further insisted that the witness T. H. Fort did not testify, as indicated in the original opinion, that he (the witness) “noticed a small red place on Re May’s right temple” at the time Re May jumped back from the automobile and asked the witness if he had received a shock. It is insisted that the statement of the witness was to the effect that he observed a red spot on Re May’s temple when he followed him into the shop, but that he did not make that observation before he went into the shop, and we find that that contention is sustained by the record.
The inaccuracies pointed out in the recitals in the original opinion we deem wholly immaterial, but we make these corrections in view of the insistence of appellant’s counsel to the contrary.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.