Court Opinion

ID: 9718866
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:36:34.860863+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:03.250767
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing
Per Curiam.
Appellant’s petition for rehearing includes an assertion that our opinion failed to give a statement in writing upon each substantial question arising in the record.
Ind. Rules of Procedure, Appellate Rule 11(B) (2), provides that one of the errors upon which transfer may be based is:
“(e) that the decision of the Court of Appeals fails to give a statement in writing of each substantial question *507arising on the record and argued by the parties. If this error is relied upon, the petition shall set forth such portions of the record so as to affirmatively disclose such failure, and establish that petitioner was prejudiced thereby.”
Although Ind. Rules of Procedure, Appellate Rule 11(B), is couched in terms of seeking transfer to the Supreme Court, we must consider its application on petitions for rehearing since the grounds enumerated in Rule AP. 11(B) (2), swpra, are classified as errors committed by the Court of Appeals.
To invoke the rule in question four elements are necessary:
1. The question must be substantial.
2. It must appear both on the record and in the argument on appeal.
3. The petition must set forth such portions of the record as affirmatively disclose points 1 and 2.
4. The petition must establish that the petitioner was prejudiced in the determination of the appeal by the failure of the Court of Appeals to give a statement in writing upon the question.
The assertion made by appellant relates to an instruction given by the court without objection. The failure to object waived any potential error. Ind. Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 51(C); General Electric Co. v. Dorr, et al. (1966), 140 Ind. App. 442, 218 N.E.2d 158 (transfer denied).
As the claimed defect was not available as error, it did not raise a substantial question and appellant could not establish prejudice in the determination of its appeal through any failure of the Court of Appeals to discuss the question in writing. Cf. O’Connor v. O’Connor (1969), 253 Ind. 295, 253 N.E.2d 250.
We also note that even though it was thus unnecessary to discuss the alleged error in our opinion in Chicago South Shore & South Bend Railroad v. Brown (1974), 162 Ind. App. 493, at 500, 320 N.E.2d 809, at 813-814, we stated as follows:
“Railroad also asserts that the trial court erred in the giving of an instruction which would have allowed the jury *508to find negligence in the existence of a space between the train and platform. Railroad, however, did not object to the giving of the instruction at trial and any error arising therefrom must, accordingly, be deemed waived for purposes of appeal.”
Rehearing on all matters raised by appellant in its petition for rehearing is denied.
Note. — Reported at 323 N.E.2d 681.