Court Opinion

ID: 9827776
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:50:55.972729+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:36:34.312403
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
In the original opinion we stated that the witnesses who conducted experiments to determine whether the step of the car could be raised with a person standing thereon testified “that it would be a physical impossibility to do so.” That is an inaccurate statement of their testimony. They testified to facts which convince us that it would have been a physical impossibility for the conductor to have thrown the deceased violently backward by turning the lever. We make this correction in the interest of accuracy. The facts covered by their testimony not only had reference to the experiments conducted by them, but also to the mechanical device by means of which the step was raised. As to this, there was no character of conflict in the evidence. To hold that the conductor' could have thrown deceased backward in the manner testified by Her-ing by the use of the lever described in this record would violate physical laws. It would amount to saying that a lever can do more work than is done upon it.
We have carefully considered the motion for rehearing in the light of the record, but still. adhere to the views expressed in our original opinion, and the motion is accordingly overruled.