Court Opinion

ID: 9709907
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 03:57:08.906008+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:52.527734
License: Public Domain

Supplemental Opinion on Rehearing. Following our allowance of the petition for rehearing, we thoroughly reviewed the case and we are of the opinion that our original conclusion was correct. Defendant has urged us to consider that the testimony of the expert witness, Moore, as to the distance within which trains could be stopped if equipped with proper brakes, which we found was erroneously excluded, was some time later admitted into evidence, and for that reason we should reverse ourselves and affirm the judgment. We have examined the record and it now appears that this evidence in question was indeed admitted. We agree with defendant that plaintiff’s brief and abstract were misleading on this point, but confusion enveloped the issue on the trial, as evidenced by an assertion made by defendant’s counsel during closing arguments, that the evidence in question had not in fact been admitted. In this state of the record, the jury must likewise have been confused as to what it could properly consider. Moreover, as we hold in our opinion, it was error for the court to direct a verdict on the count charging a violation of the Safety Appliance Act. The judgment stands reversed and the cause remanded, with directions to grant the motion for a new trial, and for such other and further proceedings as are not inconsistent with the views herein expressed. Judgment reversed and cause remanded with directions. SULLIVAN, P. J. and DEMPSEY, J., concur.