Court Opinion

ID: 9828988
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:54:30.699803+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:56.177780
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
By reason of the analysis of the evidence made by us we still hold that the uncontra-dicted evidence shows an unprecedented rainfall, which caused the damage at Clarendon, and between Clarendon and Memphis, to the appellant’s roadbed and yard at Clarendon.
In view of the rule, as laid down in the Galveston flood cases, we do not think there was any causal connection between the delay at Clarendon and the delay at Amarillo. When we say this we do not mean to find as a matter of fact that there was any delay chargeable to appellant at Amarillo; but un- • der the express limitations of our decisions in this case, we have held, and now say, that as to whether this was actionable negligence at Amarillo or at Clarendon, after reasonable time had been given for the railroad to have been repaired, we do not express any opinion, and this is made to apply to the question as to whether or not there was any delay at Amarillo chargeable to appellant, (and we leave these questions of fact to be. decided by the trial court and jury on another trial.