Court Opinion

ID: 9829040
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:56:52.718416+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:56.700392
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In deference to appellees’ able motion for rehearing, we have again considered the testimony relevant to the questions presented. In our original opinion, we stated:
“Other witnesses who were at the ranch where the feed was unloaded testified in effect that they assisted in unloading the ‘Slim’ Spradlin truck; that Walter Spradlin was sick at the time and did not assist in unloading, and, therefore, could not have sustained the alleged strain which is the basis of the judgment appealed from.”
This statement is erroneous and is withdrawn. The “other witnesses” referred to were not testifying about unloading the “Slim” Spradlin truck but aibout unloading Walter Spradlin’s truck at the Finley ranch where the second truck was unloaded. However, we adhere to our former conclusion that (1) whether deceased assisted in unloading “Slim” Spradlin’s truck and (2) whether he was injured at that time were matters of fact for the jury to determine. J. D. Sprad-lin’s testimony is contradicted by the testimony of Bromley and other circumstances. Bromley testified that J. D. (Slim) Spradlin reported to him that Walter Spradlin got sick when they were more than 70 miles “this side” of the ranch where “Slim” Spradlin’s truck was unloaded, and that neither J. D. nor Walter Spradlin ever mentioned to him the strain alleged to have been suffered by Walter Spradlin while unloading the “Slim” Spradlin truck. However, the judgment was not reversed on account of the wording of issue one.
Appellees earnestly insist that if the court erred in failing to limit the testimony of Mrs. Spradlin as to what her husband told her it was harmless error, for the reason that such testimony referred solely to deceased’s injury in a truck accident, which the jury found deceased did not sustain. We cannot agree with this interpretation of the testimony. She testified that she told her lawyers that the truck accident happened after the alleged strain while lifting the sacks of feed. “I told them about the lifting and *185then the accident.” She testified that all she knew was what her husband told her, hut “I could always depend on what he told me.” In the absence of a limitation of the effect of said testimony, it could easily have been appropriated by the jury as evidence that deceased did sustain a strain while lifting the sacks of feed. The motion for rehearing is overruled.