Court Opinion

ID: 9834109
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:18:06.128964+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:11.684636
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
The nature of appellant’s argument in its motion for rehearing is well reflected by the following sentence taken therefrom: “We earnestly insist that the speed of the train was not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury, the evidence showing that the engineer discovered the plight of appellee more than a quarter of a mile away, and the record further showing that the train could have been stopped in less than a quarter of a mile, and plaintiff having failed to allege as negligence the failure of appellant to stop its train after discovering the plight of appellee, appellee-is certainly not entitled to recover oh that-theory.”
The argument proceeds upon the theory that a negligent defendant may break the causal connection between its negligence and the injuries by doing a further wrong or committing a further act of negligence. The facts do not present that interesting question for our decision, but what we shall state hereinafter is not to imply our assent to its soundness.
Appellant’s engineer testified that he set his brakes and began to slow his speed- as-soon as he saw the automobile, and that he saw sarnie, when he was “about a half a mile or a quarter of a mile” from the automobiles He further testified that he had a good set of brakes and that they were in good working: order. This testimony disproves appellant;» contention that the proximate cause of the injuries was the failure of its engineer to exercise ordinary care to avoid the injury after discovering appellee’s plight, but tends rather to support the conclusion that the train was being operated at such a high and-dangerous rate of speed that it could not be-brought to a stop within a quarter of a mile.
The motion for rehearing will be overruled.