Court Opinion

ID: 9772655
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:24:53.269394+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:46.595487
License: Public Domain

ON APPELLEE’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
We quote from appellee’s motion for rehearing :
“This Honorable Court seems to hold that appellee ‘failed to observe a small 12 year old boy standing at the edge of the highway and within a few feet from the path of appellee’s car’, but appellee says that the record does not justify this holding. There is nothing in the record to correlate the time that Tony’s brother saw him standing at or near the south side of the highway, in relation to the time that appellee’s car approached the scene of the accident. Appellee says that insofar as the record is concerned that Tony might have, and probably did, return again to the fireworks stand after his brother last saw him, and then ran out in front of appellee’s car.”
Richard, Tony’s brother, on cross examination by counsel for appellee testified:
“Q How long was it, Richard, from the time you last saw Tony until you heard the car hit him, and you did hear the car hit him, didn’t you?
“A I did hear it.
“Q How long was it? Was it just about like that (snaps finger) ?
“A It was real quick when I turned around to see him but he was already being dragged.
“Q Was it just a moment or two?
“A Yes, sir.
*86“Q Is that fair to say?
“A Yes, sir.
* * * * * *
“Q And you say that Tony looked to his left and to his right ?
“A Yes, sir. I saw Tony look in both directions and then before I turned my face around I looked that way and there was no car coming, and that was when I turned around and talked to the boys.
⅜ * * * * *
“Q But just a moment after you turned back to talk to Louis and Joe and the other boy, you heard the car strike Tony, is that correct?
“A Yes, sir.”
The motion is overruled.
Motion overruled.