Court Opinion

ID: 9827984
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:59:45.2686+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:54:05.496478
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
In the original opinion it is said:
“The evidence shows that it is the railroad custom to decide what particular switching movement shall be used when the train reaches the point where the movement is to be consummated. That when the point is reached, the foreman of the switching crew determines which movement shall be used. These decisions require instantaneous determination.”
In this connection it should be further said that the record justifies 'the conclusion that when Chambers decided to cut the train in two and make the movement different from the order he had previously given, he should have signaled, or notified Estes in some way before he gave the order to the engineer to operate the train in such manner as would cause it to part in the manner it did.
The motion for rehearing of plaintiff in error h£s been carefully considered, and we see no occasion to recede from the views expressed in the original opinion. The motion is therefore overruled.