Court Opinion

ID: 9833990
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:12:27.917939+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:10.310625
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant has called our attention to what he claims were erroneous statements in the original opinion as to the evidence in the ease. The errors referred to are as to our statement that there was a conflict in the evidence as to what was on the sign on the door and as to how the dog came out of the house.
While we do not feel these matters have any bearing upon the controlling questions in the case, still, as the matter has been referred to, we will, in order to have it clear, discuss the statements made.
Appellee’s testimony was to the effect that he saw the sign but did not see all that Mrs. Moore claimed was thereon, therefore, we feel that we were not in error in our statement as to a conflict in that respect.
We were, however, in error in our statement that there was a conflict as to how the dog came out of the house and that Mrs. Moore testified that he came out through the window.
A further examination of the record shows that her testimony as to the dog’s getting out of the house through the window, referred to another occasion and not to the one in question.
Not being able to agree with appellant’s contention that appellee, an invitee, by going upon the premises, after having seen the warning sign, unnecessarily put himself in the way of the dog, and, therefore, could not recover or that his action in so doing entitled appellant to have the question as to whether he voluntarily and unnecessarily put himself in the dog’s way submitted to the jury, we must overrule this motion.