Court Opinion

ID: 9831252
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:58:14.009945+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:33.225934
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
In his earnest motion for rehearing, ap-pellee insists that our opinion was based upon questions not presented in appellant’s brief and upon a theory different to that on which it was tried below. In this we think he is in error. Appellant’s brief was a very long one, covering 158 pages of printed matter. It contained 45 assignments of error with a like number of propositions. It is true that a large part of the argument was devoted to the contention that appellee was engáged in interstate transportation at the time he received his injuries, but it is none the less true that the brief sets out practically all the evidence introduced upon the trial, that assignments of error complain of the action of the trial court in submitting the different issues to the jury on the ground there was no evidence warranting their submission, and that, by separate assignments, the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain these various findings is challenged. We therefore have assignments, propositions, and statements, the effect of which was to cause us to examine the statement of facts to determine whether, in our opinion, there was contained therein sufficient evidence to support the different findings. We consulted the statement of facts in response to assignments of error brought forward in appellant’s brief, making it our duty to do so.
By a separate motion we are asked to correct a finding of fact made in our opinion, as follows: “The mudsill was approximately the size of a railroad tie, and was estimated to weigh 800 pounds.”
The record on this question is in this condition: Appellee himself testified as follows:
“Q. Is that what is known ordinarily as a tie under a railroad, or a mudsill under a bridge? A. It is a mudsill under a bridge; it is the same size, only it was a mudsill.
“Do you know about the weight of that mudsill, approximately? A. Well, I figured it weighed at least 800 pounds. It might not have weighed quite so much, maybe more.”
It is pointed out in the motion that the same witness later on in his examination gave the following testimony:
“Q. What kind of timber did you take out? A. We took out a 12x12, or 12x14.”
The whole matter seems relatively unimportant. Appellee is in no position to request that we find contrary to his own testimony. The testimony last above set out conveys no definite idea of size, the length not being stated. We are called upon to make a finding that the sill was 12 inches wide by 12 inches thick by 14 feet long. We are referred to no evidence of its length, and certainly could not make that finding. The only material fact about the matter is the weight. It would certainly be no more dangerous to handle a large body of a given weight than a small one of the same weight. It occurs to us that the danger would be less.
The motion for rehearing and the motion for correction of findings of fact are overruled.