Court Opinion

ID: 9532707
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:24:09.862279+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:49.446751
License: Public Domain

Per Curiam.
 The facts and the law of this case are set forth herein according to the view of a majority of the Justices on the question of defendant’s liability in the opinion written by Justice Holmes, and it is therefore unnecessary that they be set forth in this per curiam opinion, That opinion as to liability is concurred in by Justices Arrington, Kyle, Hall and McGehee, and results in an affirmance of the case- as to liability.
But the case is reversed by a vote of a majority of the Justices, namely, Lotterhos, Ethridge, Kyle, Roberds and McGehee for a new trial on the question of damages, for the reasons set forth in the opinion written by Justice Ethridge herein, and in which the said majority of the Justices concur.
 Three of the Justices, namely, Arrington, Holmes and Hall are of the opinion that the case should be affirmed both as to liability and damages, for the reasons stated in their dissenting opinion as to the reversal on the question of damages; whereas three'other Justices, *34namely, Lotterhos, Ethridge and Roberds are of the opinion that the ease should be reversed and remanded both as to liability and damages, and for the reasons stated in their dissenting opinion as to the affirmance here of the ease on the question of liability.
Therefore the result is that the case is affirmed on the question of liability by the votes of Justices Arrington, Holmes, Kyle, Hall and McGehee; and is reversed on the question of damages by the majority vote of Justices Lotterhos, Ethridge, Kyle, Roberds and McGehee.
Affirmed on the issue of liability and reversed on the question of damages.
Roberds, Ethridge, and Lotterhos, JJ., dissent as to affirmance on liability. McGehee, G. J., and Hall, Kyle, Holmes and Arrington, JJ., concur in affirmance as to liability. McGehee, G.J., and Roberds, Kyle, Ethridge, and Lotterhos, JJ., concur as to reversal for trial on question of damages. Hall, Holmes and Arrington, JJ., concur in dissent as to reversal for trial on question of damages. Lee, J., took no part.