Court Opinion

ID: 9567014
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:46:51.901923+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:50:40.698374
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing COMPTON, Justice. The appellant has moved for a rehearing and oral arguments, thereon, in which he-seems to sense confusion and uncertainty in the law if we permit our opinions on file to' stand. We do not share his apprehension on this score. The"trial court among other things found: “7. That on numerous occasions prior to the injury, Donald Walker had been ordered by his employers not to handle any of the weapons in the officers’ automobiles and had been warned of the dangerous character of said weapons. including the tear gas hilly gun. That on the day of the injury and just before entering the car to clean the glass, he was reminded of the order and again warned by a fellow employee.” “8. That Donald Walker was injured as the result of his wilful violation of defendant’s orders not to touchi or handle the weapons in -officers’ cars, and no part of his duties required him ■ to touch or handle said weapons.” We do not see how it is possible to support a recovery in the face of these findings. The motion and brief supporting it largely cover the same ground found in the original briefs. We do not feel that another hearing and oral argument would change the result previously reached. Accordingly, the motion for rehearing will be denied, and it is so ordered. ■McGHEE, C. J., and SADLER, LUJAN, and SEYMOUR, JJ., concur.