Court Opinion

ID: 9868342
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 18:31:01.177087+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:49.692065
License: Public Domain

Orr Petition To Receceiab,
Counsel assume that we held that plaintiff was bound by his statement that one light was burning when the accident occurred, which is erroneous. We did not pass upon that question, deeming it immaterial. Our opinion was bottomed on the broad proposition that where one might have avoided the injury by the exercise of ordinary care and prudence, and failed to do so, he will he regarded as the author of his own misfortune. When, shortly after leaving Jackson, plaintiff discovered that one light bulb had burned out he was confronted with a situation which, according to his own testimony, he knew was hazardous. With this knowledge he decided to incur the risk, and thereby relieved Taylor from liability for the injury which followed.
Ordinarily where one exercises had judgment when confronted with an emergency he will not be held liable for an injury which has resulted from his conduct. 45 C. J. 710. Rush testified that Taylor could see better with the lights extinguished. Taylor evidently felt that way about it, according to the testim,ony of plaintiff. But our *434decision was not rested npon that principle of law. The testimony npon that question was cited in extenuation of Taylor’s conduct upon that occasion. If plaintiff had not continued the journey in the car after discovering that it was unsafe to do so, he would not have been injured. On the other hand, it is not likely that the accident would have happened had both lights been burning. In the circumstances, whether Taylor’s conduct was due to negligence or had judgment, we think plaintiff had reason to anticipate such an accident, notwithstanding which he decided to take the chance. In this situation it would be unjust to charge Taylor with his misfortune.
The petition to rehear is denied.