Court Opinion

ID: 9831834
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:24:16.011398+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:38.428913
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Referring to the condition of the weather on the night the deceased, Stewart, was killed, we said in our opinion: “The night was * * * very cold.” The correctness of this conclusion is challenged in appellant’s motion for a rehearing, and the statement madei that there is no evidence to support it, but that the “undisputed evidence” shows the contrary. We conclude from a further examination of the testimony that neither the conclusion attacked nor the statement made in the motion for a rehearing is entirely accurate. No witness testified that the weather was “very cold,” but the motorman, who was Operating the car that the deceased came in contact with, testified: “It was pretty cold the evening of the accident, disagreeable, and wind blowing, and a sand storm.” However, admitting that it was not very cold the night of the accident in question, that fact does not materially alter the ease; for, independently thereof, the evidence was of such a character as to require the submission of the issues upon which appellant’s liability 'depended and to justify the jury’s finding upon them. The testimony bearing upon the issue of contributory negligence on , the part of the • deceased is sufficiently stated in the opinion, and fails to show such negligence as a matter of law.
Seeing no sufficient reason for changing' the disposition-we have made of the case, the motion for rehearing is overruled.