Court Opinion

ID: 9830609
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:19:28.272489+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:24.773312
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant, in its motion for rehearing, criticizes the finding and statement of this court as to the nature, extent, and location of the injuries of appellee. It urges that the evidence fails to show that any bones of ap-pellee’s leg were broken. Dr. Bond’s testimony was to the effect:
That the radiograph of the injured'foot, taken by him and exhibited during the trial, showed a fracture. “Picture 2000 shows a fracture of what we call the external malleolus ; that is, the end of the small bone of the leg. The fracture is across there, but it seems to have reunited. That dark in there shows where the fracture was across there, and the shadow is soft callous.”
The appellee testified that Dr. Duringer stated to him that there was a sprain of the ankle of the left foot. In the opinion, this court speaks of the sprain being in the “other foot,” to wit, the right foot. It appears we were in error as to which foot was sprained. But the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the amount of the verdict may rest upon the left foot instead of the right and still be upheld.
Motion for rehearing is overruled.