Court Opinion

ID: 9767801
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:27:26.854629+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:33.124397
License: Public Domain

On Appellee’s Second Motion for Rehearing.
We have given careful consideration to the second motion for rehearing made by •the appellee, but still adhere to the views expressed in the original opinion 'and those expressed in overruling the original motion for rehearing, an¡d the second motion is hereby overruled.
In its second motion for rehearing appellee complains that we erred in holding that the tank on which plaintiff was riding was higher than the wires of the Texas Electric Service Company, further that we erred in holding plaintiff was lifting electric wires over the top of the tank at the time of the injury. The statement in the original opinion complained of is as follows: “The wires of defendant crossed said street. The tank on the trailer was higher than the wires. The plaintiff was engaged in lifting the wires over the tank and in some way he was severely shocked and burned by an electric current.” Unquestionably there were telephone wires crossing the street at this point. Under the evidence we think it was an issue of fact as to whether at the time he was lifting telephone wires, or the power wires of the defendant; and as to whether the wires of defendant sagged below those of the telephone company. The matter is no.t deemed of controlling, importance, but in view of the defendant’s complaint we make this explanation.
Further, as to the statement made by the juror Corey, that same was made after the case had been submitted to the jury, we modify the same so as to show that the statement was made during the time the case was on trial before the jury.