Court Opinion

ID: 9868499
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 18:38:14.694924+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:51.120191
License: Public Domain

On Petition to Reheak.
Petition to rehear has been filed which fails to comply with Rule 32, 173 Tenn. 886, 887. No omission or oversight is suggested and no new argument or authority presented. Such petition must be denied under authority of many cases. Andrews v. Crenshaw, 51 Tenn. 151, 152; Louisville & N. Railroad v. Fidelity &. Guaranty Co., 125 Tenn. 658, 148 S. W. 671. Petitioner insists that our former opinion erroneously decided the case but cites no new authority or argument for such position. The fact that petitioner is dissatisfied does not justify a rehearing.
“ ‘If re-hearings are to be had, until the counsel on both sides are entirely satisfied, we fear that suits would become immortal, and the decision be postponed indefinitely.’ ” Story’s Eq. Pl. (8 Ed.), sec. 421, page 395, note. Compare Andrews v. Crenshaw, 51 Tenn. 151, 153.
Petitioner insists that our statement of the rule for determining a guest’s contributory negligence is new and revolutionary. It is neither. It is a mere restatement of the rule of Dedman v. Dedman, 155 Tenn. 241, at page *477246, 291 S. W. 449, where the Van Gilder and Vanhoy Gases are cited in support. The same rule is clearly-illustrated and followed in Louisville & N. R. R. Co. v. Anderson, 159 Tenn. 55, 15 S. W. (2d) 753, where the .Court, in holding a guest in an automobile guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law, said:
“He (the guest) is shown to have been aware that they were approaching the railroad, for he had commented on the train on the ‘ Y’ track. He must also have teen conscious of the fact that Mr. Chandler ivas approaching the crossing without stopping, in violation of Acts 1917, chap. 36, which makes it the duty of the driver of an automobile to come to a full stop at a distance of not less than 10; feet nor more than 50 feet from a grade crossing.” Page 62 of 159 Tenn., page 755 of 15 S. W. (2d) (Emphasis ours.)
The case before us is clearly different and distinguishable on the facts. The evidence of the details of the collision are in sharp dispute. Both the driver of the automobile and her passenger testify, with no contradictory evidence, that the unlighted freight car loomed suddenly before the automobile and that the collision ensued immediately, with no opportunity for the driver to stop the car and a fortiori with no opportunity for the guest to warn the driver or take other steps for her own safety.
 Petitioner insists that because the plaintiff was riding in an automobile in Jackson, Tennessee, in proximity to a railroad grade crossing, that she was in a position of known peril and under a legal duty to take steps for her own safety. We find no authority for this contention either in books or common sense. As we may properly take judicial notice that in Jackson, Tennessee, very many of the principal arteries of automobile traffic *478cross railroads at grade, the imposition of a rule- that guests are. required, whenever an automobile in which they are riding is in proximity to one of these crossings, to interfere with the driver by warning or otherwise, would be as unreasonable as it would be impractical, and would greatly increase, rather than diminish, the hazards of traffic.
For the reasons stated the petition is denied.