Court Opinion

ID: 9833337
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:37:57.020631+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:01.680296
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
In our former opinion herein, we held that the court did not err in its charge, for the reason that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was applicable under the allegations of plaintiff’s petition. We supposed that appellant’s assignment of error in this regard had reference to appellee’s allegations as to punitory damages. A more careful examination of the record has convinced us of our error in this particular.
[4] Appellee’s petition alleges that he was injured while in a caboose of appellant’s train by another of appellant’s freight trains running into said caboose. The only allegation of negligence in said petition, aside from his allegations as to punitory damages, is that said collision occurred “by reason of the negligent acts of the agents, employés, and servants in charge of said trains of said' defendant and each of them.” There was no proof of negligence on the part of said train crews, or of any member of either of said crews. So far as the evidence in this case shows, there may have been no such-negligence, and yet such collision might have occurred, just as the evidence shows it did occur, by reason of the negligence of the train dispatcher in giving or in failing to give orders to one or both of the conductors *400of said trains, or by a switchman negligently leaving the switch open, or by the improper construction of the track, or in any number of other ways, without any fault or negligence of any one operating or assisting in operating either of said trains. While, under the allegations of appellee’s petition, he was not bound to prove any specific act of negligence on the part of any member of either of said crews, yet he was bound to prove some act of negligence bn the part of some of said parties. Having limited his allegations of negligence to certain employes of appellant, he cannot recover upon proof of facts which indicate negligence of some character on part of appellant, but does not show negligence on the part of those whom he has specifically charged with such negligence as the cause of his injury.
Motion for rehearing is granted, and the judgment herein is reversed, and this cause remanded for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.