Court Opinion

ID: 9833042
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:23:41.290954+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:58.356317
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In her motion for rehearing appellee complains, amongst other things, of some of the findings of fact made by this court. We have therefore re-examined the statement of facts, and are of the opinion that one of the findings complained of by appellee may be erroneous, and should be corrected. This finding in our former opinion was as follows:
“The testimony shows that Robinson’s experience was confined to rowing a boat on a small, still water lake, about 300 yards square, near Temple; that he had had no experience in rowing a boat in a current or overflow.”
John Moore seems to have been the only witness who testified as to Robinson’s qualifications as a boatman, and his testimony on this point was as follows:
“Mr. Robinson claimed to know how to row a boat; claiftied to be a skilled boatman. Leath-erbury was advised of that fact — that Robinson was a skilled boatman.”
And again the same witness testified:
“When he came around I said to him, ‘Mr. Robinson, are you experienced in handling a boat?’ and he said, T have handled them a right smart; I have handled them on Bake Polk;’ that is a little lake just west of Temple; and I said, ‘Well, there is a vast difference between Lake Polk and this current down here;’ and he said he could handle it all right.”
It is not controverted' that Lake Polk is an artificial still water lake, about 300 yards square. It thus appears that our finding is perhaps too general, and might better have been stated that the only actual experience Robinson was shown to have had was in rowing a boat on Lake Polk, but that he claimed to have been a skilled boatman. We therefore make this correction of our former opinion.
To this extent appellee’s motion is granted, and in all other respects it is overruled.
Motion overruled.