Court Opinion

ID: 9831499
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:08:52.878486+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:35.375218
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In her motion for rehearing, appellee insists that we erred in reversing the judgment of the trial court for its failure to submit to the jury separately the issues of negligence, alleged by her as a basis for recovery. The contention is presented that the-uncontrovert-ed evidence conclusively established the dangerous condition of the bridge in the four separate particulars alleged in plaintiff’s petition, and that, therefore, there was no error in submitting in general terms whether or not the bridge was in. a dangerous condition, and whether defendant was guilty of negligence in maintaining it in that condition. To sustain that contention would be to ignore the further essentials to a recovery; namely, that even- though it be said that the proof was as contended, still it was a question for the jury to determine whether or not any of defendant’s acts or omissions, relied on by plaintiff, was negligence, and whether or not such negligence was a proximate cause of the injury sustained by plaintiff, Agnes Ware.
*466Furthermore, under the charge, the jury would be at liberty to find the bridge unsafe for reasons other than those alleged in the petition.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.