Court Opinion

ID: 9826836
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 16:45:12.253675+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:16.246223
License: Public Domain

*173On Petition to Rebear.
Counsel for J. Carroll Sims bave petitioned tbe court for a re-bearing upon tbe ground that tbe court overlooked tbe fact that cross-plaintiff failed to indicate bis intention of making a left turn as required by Chapter 245, Acts of 1937, Sec. 2(c) Paragraph 9 and was, therefore, guilty of negligence per se. For this reason it is insisted tbe court’s action in peremptorily dismissing tbe cross-action without permitting cross-plaintiff to introduce proof establishing bis alleged cause of action amounted to a harmless error for which this court should not reverse.
As pointed out in tbe original opinion cross-plaintiff testified that when be entered tbe highway cross-defendant was 300 feet away and that be bad succeeded in making tbe turn when be was struck by cross-defendant on tbe latter’s left side of tbe highway. Under these facts it was for the' jury to say whether tbe failure to give tbe signal was tbe sole or a proximately contributing cause of tbe collision and cross-plaintiff was entitled to develop bis case and bave it submitted to tbe jury under a correct charge. "We adhere to our original opinion that because of tbe dismissal of bis action and for error in tbe charge, tbe case must be remanded for a new trial.
In addition to what has been said, it might be observed that cross-defendent made no motion for peremptory instructions at tbe conclusion of tbe evidence and since compelling a non-suit is unknown to our practice, there is nothing upon which this court may act upon appeal, and, for that reason according to established practice, tbe case will bave to be remanded for a new trial.
Tbe petition to rehear must, accordingly, be denied.