Court Opinion

ID: 9642954
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 18:13:46.442084+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:55.279297
License: Public Domain

SMITH, Justice
(dissenting).
I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals, 367 S.W.2d 925. That judgment requires a remittitur of $6,750.00.
The defendant by refusing the plaintiffs the privilege of using its tracks and facilities rendered it impossible for the plaintiffs to make the test under similar conditions. The defendant’s objection to the test that was actually made, was based on the ground that the experiment was not under substantially similar conditions as existed at the scene of the collision, was properly overruled by the trial court.
I disagree with the majority view that there was no more than a scintilla of evidence, aside from the evidence of the result of the test, to show that the involved crossing was one attended with unusual danger or extraordinary hazard.
I agree that the question as to whether a crossing is extra hazardous necessarily depends upon the facts in each case. However, due to lack of time, I will supplement this dissent at a later date. In this connec*285tion, the opinion of the Court holding that it was the view of the majority that there was no more than a scintilla of evidence, in effect, no evidence to support the jury finding that the crossing was extra hazardous came to my attention sometime after Tuesday, January 21, 1964.
Since the opinion merely states that “it is the view of the majority of the members of the Court,” without stating which members do not agree, I wish to definitely place myself with the view that there is more than a scintilla of evidence to support the finding of a hazardous crossing. There is evidence of probative force without the evidence of the moving picture.
I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals.