Court Opinion

ID: 9832216
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:43:07.477454+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:44.316235
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Upon request from appellees, we find that Wilma Watson, the daughter of appellees for whose death this suit was brought, was a guest in the automobile in which she was riding at the time it was struck by the train, that she had no interest in the automobile, and was riot driving the'same at the time of the collision.
Appellees have also filed their motion for a rehearing, in which they say:
“It is respectfully submitted that there is no distinction between the case at bar and the Salter Case heretofore decided by this court and reported in 285 S. W. 1112. We are unable to see any distinction between the cases, nor has the court seen fit to undertake to distinguish the cases, and such case was very prominently discussed by appellant and appel-lees. Nevertheless we find ourselves embarrassed to some extent by the silence of the court with reference to its silence on the matter, not knowing whether or not it regards itself as having reversed its position in the Salter Case.”
To relieve the embarrassment of counsel for appellees mentioned in the motion, in so far as we can, we will try to point out the distinction between the Salter Case and the present case.
There is no conflict with the holding in the Salter Case, in that the situations passed upon were not the same. In the first place, what was decided there was that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the jury’s specific finding that Yivian Salter was guilty of contributory negligence in failing to seasonably see the train and warn the driver, while here it was simply determined that there were enough facts and circumstances in evidence to raise the issue of contributory negligence generally upon this girl’s part— two decidedly different questions. In the second place, the issue of contributory negligence upon Yivian Salter’s part, as just indicated, was expressly limited by the questions submitting it — taken along with the jury’s findings in answering — to the one particular of whether or riot she saw the train in time to have warned the driver, etc., while here that issue was not so confined, but was asked to be submitted generally, that is, whether or not the girl was so negligent in any respect.
With the above explanation, the motion is refused.