Court Opinion

ID: 9832522
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:58:34.680575+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:47.632659
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
It is concluded tliat the former ruling is not warranted that the charge of the court is erroneous in failing to sufficiently authorize and require the jury to find that the failure to give warning to the appellee of the street car’s approach was the proximate cause of the injury. The sixth paragraph would, it is believed, require the jury to find a verdict for the defendant if the failure to give warning of the street car’s approach was not the proximate cause of the injury. Hence it is concluded the motion for rehearing should be granted.
We have fully considered each assignment of error, and are of the opinion that reversible error may not be predicated upon them. They are therefore overruled.
The judgment is ordered affirmed.