Court Opinion

ID: 9449329
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:09:37.230797+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:47.923164
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING
PER CURIAM.
Upon petition for a rehearing appellee asserts that the court has misread the record, which, it asserts, showed Jackson’s ability and duty to protect himself by applying emergency brakes as the train approached the collision point. The following assertions are made: that photographs in evidence showed that the emergency cord extended the entire length of the car; that Jackson could see the red lights ahead through the car windows; and that he could have run to the car door to look for himself. We find no such evidence in the record. The significant fact noted in our opinion is that Jackson, after warning, “had no way to estimate whether the collision would happen in one second, two seconds, or half a second.” It is for this reason that the unsupported assertions now made would be irrelevant if true.
 It is elementary that the burden of proof of comparative negligence on the part of a plaintiff is on the defendant. Western & Atlantic R.R. v. Mathis, 63 Ga.App. 172, 10 S.E.2d *538457, 460. The failure of the record to show circumstances requiring Jackson to act in the manner appellee asserts he should have done amounts to a simple failure of proof.
The petition for rehearing is denied.