Court Opinion

ID: 9666300
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:10:37.377582+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:26.380038
License: Public Domain

Opinion on Petition to Rehear
A very zealons and impassioned petition to rehear has been filed in this case in which it is argued that w© weighed the evidence in arriving at the conclusions stated in our original opinion. In our original opinion we summarized the ucontraverted facts which appear in the record.
Furthermore, we pointed out that any differences between Mrs. White’s version of the facts surrounding Falster’s death and Mr. White’s version of those, facts in no way changed the undisputed testimony in the record which showed that Falster voluntarily and intentionally met with White when Falster was in possession of facts which would require a reasonable man to foresee that death or injury to Falster might result from such meeting. Therefore, his death was not accidental within the double indemnity provision of the policy sued on.
The petition to rehear and a supplemental brief in support of the petition to rehear are signed by only one of the attorneys of record for the petitioner. The supplemental brief in support of the petition to rehear concludes with an appeal to the attorneys for the defendant “to at least cite one case in which an appellate court has. reversed a trial court who has approved the jury’s verdict for failing to direct a verdict.”
Since the attorney filing the petition to rehear appears to be unfamiliar with such cases, we call his attention to Glassman v. Martin, 196 Tenn. 595, 269 S.W.2d 908, *153in which the writer of this opinion, when a Circuit Judge submitted a case to the jury and approved the verdict of the jury for the plaintiff when, as a matter of law, the evidence did not make an issue for the jury. The Supreme Court reversed and dismissed the case.
In order that it not be assumed that Glassman v. Martin, supra, is unique, we call attention to Acme Box Co. v. Gregory, 119 Tenn. 537, 106 S.W. 350; Mobile & O. Railroad Co. v. Brownsville Livery & Live Stock Co., 123 Tenn. 298, 130 S.W. 788, Louisville & N. Railroad Co. v. Ray, 121 Tenn. 16, 134 S.W. 858, Mayor and Aldermen of Knoxville v. Cain, 128 Tenn. 250, 159 SW. 1081, Southern Ice Co. v. Black, 136 Tenn. 391, 189 S.W. 861, Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Davis, 18 Tenn.App. 413, 78 S.W.2d 358, Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. v. Sutton, 21 Tenn. App. 31, 104 S.W.2d 834, Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co. v. Omohundro, 30 Tenn.App. 151, 201 S.W.2d 185.
We find no merit in the petition to rehear. It is denied.
Burnett, Chiee Justice, and White and Dyer, Justices, concur.
Chattin, Justice, not participating.