Court Opinion

ID: 9700613
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 21:37:43.875864+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:12.330124
License: Public Domain

The following opinion was filed March 7, 1961:
Martin, C. J.
(on motion for rehearing). Appellant alleges several grounds for his motion for rehearing, one of *257bwhich requires this memorandum. In the original opinion, ante, p. 252, it was incorrectly stated at the middle of page 257a that:
“It is undisputed that the bell on the diesel engine rang continuously for a distance of about four miles before the train reached the crossing in question, that the horn had been sounded three tenths of a mile from the crossing, and that the train was traveling at only 18 miles per hour.”
The evidence as to the bell and the horn was the positive testimony of the locomotive engineer and fireman. It was disputed only by the negative testimony of appellant and the witness Miller. As to the speed of the train, it was testified to be 18 miles per hour on the basis of observation, custom and usage, and it was further shown by the expert testimony that the train stopped within a distance of 500 feet, which was the stopping distance of such a train going 18 miles per hour under the existing conditions. This testimony has probative force; that of Miller, which was based on casual observation, has little.
The inaccuracy of our original statement is immaterial, however, since it referred to such facts as had a bearing on the appellant’s exercise of care as to listening, and it was followed by language holding that even if such facts were considered as establishing the exercise of due care in that respect, it would not relieve appellant of the absolute duty to look in both directions before crossing the track, failure of which, under the authorities, amounts to the exercise of no care at all.
By the Court. — The motion is denied with $25 costs.