Court Opinion

ID: 9833572
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:50:30.783186+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:04.449813
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
In her motion for rehearing, appellee contends that “the court committed error in finding that the uncovered pipe under the seat was from 13 to 15 inches. The facts show that it was only 8 inches. This is material because the 8 inches of exposed pipe could not have caused the burn of,12 inches on appellee’s leg.”
We do not think there exists any ground for a misunderstanding or complaint in regard to the matter mentioned in this assignment, when the findings of the court are considered in connection with undisputed evidence. In our original opinion we found that: “The guard or hood * * *
extends over the pipes the entire space from seat to seat and 2⅛ inches under the cushions of each, leaving about 8 inches unguarded immediately beneath the seat”; that is to say, the hood was not continuous, but under each seat lacked 8 inches of meeting. At another place we found that the guard or hood covering the pipes was 4½ inches wide, the outer edge of which extended downward 2⅛ inches, the evidence showing that the distance from the lower edge of the hood to the floor was 7½ inches, hence the pipes throughout the length of the passenger car were not shielded beneath the lower edge of the hoods, the' length of which beneath each seat, as stated in the original opinion, was from 13 to 15 inches, which appellee’s leg, in her prone condition on the floor, could have contacted and, in our opinion, did contact and was burned. However, we are now convinced that the length of the pipes beneath each seat was 13 inches, instead of from 13 to 15 inches.
After duly considering all grounds urged by appellee for rehearing, and finding no reason to change our decision, the motion is overruled.
Overruled.