Court Opinion

ID: 9526113
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:12:29.651276+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:18:26.154392
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion
Jackson, J.
I concur in the result of the opinion written by Judge Landis. I think the crux of the matter before the court on the petition to transfer is found at the top of page 810 in North Eastern Reporter, Vol. 194, which sets forth the factual situation as follows:
“Appellant, Richard Sheptak, a minor, thirteen years of age, was riding a bicycle in a westerly direction along the sidewalk on the south side of Sixth Avenue in the city of Gary, Indiana, and while in an intersection of said sidewalk with a certain public alley, known as Alley No. 2, and running generally north and south, appellee, operating her automobile in a northerly direction in said alley, likewise entered said intersection, and the two said vehicles collided, causing injuries to appellant, on account of which this action was commenced by the filing of a complaint, to which an answer was filed under Rule 1-3, thus putting the cause at issue.”
From the facts so stated it could be argued that appellant was on the sidewalk or in the alternative that he was on or in the alley. In my opinion both of the parties at the time of the collision were in a position where they had a right to be and the only question to be determined is whether or not the appellant was guilty of contributory negligence.
The question of contributory negligence is one of proof and the burden is on the defendant to prove the plaintiff is guilty of such negligence, it is not presumed.
The questions raised by the instructions in question *506are, in my opinion, not germane to the issues before the trial court as the Appellate Court opinion and the majority opinion do not show such instructions were proper.
Note. — Reported in 205 N. E. 2d 548.