Court Opinion

ID: 9540345
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:14:55.537283+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:38.305947
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Bierly, J.
The first sentence of the first paragraph on Page 12, of the original opinion reading as follows:
“We likewise have the testimony of Mrs. Owen, wife of the appellee, that she had advised appellant to not start the mower or use it,”
was intended and is hereby stated to read as follows:
“We likewise have the testimony of appellant that Mrs. Owen, wife of the appellee had advised appellant to not start the mower or use it.”
Further, the first two sentences in the paragraph in the middle of page 13 of the original opinion reading as follows:
“Thus, in considering the evidence in the case at bar, if any duty be owed to appellee by appellant it would consist in avoiding a lawful injury to appellant. It appears, and we conclude that in the case at bar, no evidence is forthcoming that appellee caused either directly or indirectly a lawful injury to the person of the appellant.”
was intended and is hereby stated to read as follows:
“Thus, in considering the evidence in the case at bar, if any duty be owed by appellee to appellant it would consist in avoiding an unlawful injury to appellant. It appears, and we conclude that in the case at bar, no evidence is forthcoming that appellee caused either directly or indirectly an unlawful injury to the person of the appellant.”
*203Subject to the corrections heretofore set out, the appellant’s Petition for Rehearing is hereby denied.
Note. — Reported in 218 N. E. 2d 351.