Court Opinion

ID: 9829231
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:07:02.305408+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:58.727970
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
In our opinion in this ease, in discussing the court’s charge, complained of by appellant by its second assignment of error, we made the statement that it was undisputed on trial that one of the box cars standing on the side tracks and alleged to have obscured appellee’s driver’s view of the approaching train “projected into King street.” The statement is incorrect, and not necessary nor intended to uphold the correctness of the court’s charge. The driver did, however, testify that the end of one of the cars-projected into the street proper. What we-intended to say was that it was undisputed that the cars were standing upon the sidetrack, and it is only to the cars so standing-upon the side track that the charge refers. Nowhere in the charge does the court refer to any car projecting into King street. That the statement was not intended in support, of our ruling is made clear by our opinion. There we say that the court’s reference in his charge to the cars was not error, since the only reference to any cars in the charge complained of is the cars standing on the-switch which is an undisputed and admitted fact.
We have examined the other assignments in the motion for rehearing, and conclude they are not well taken. Accordingly the motion is overruled.