Court Opinion

ID: 9862922
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 02:29:08.21374+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:38:11.971162
License: Public Domain

On Petition to Rehear.
BuRjstett, Chief Justice.
The plaintiffs in error filed herein a courteous petition to rehear. This petition though is nothing more nor less than a reargument of what has heretofore been argued before the bar of this Court and in the briefs originally filed. It is questioned though in the petition to rehear that *516we shouldn’t have reached the conclusion that we did, because it is argued from certain statements of the witnesses cited that this conclusion was not supported by material evidence. We, after reviewing the matter, are satisfied without a doubt that the jury trying this case were clearly justified in reaching the conclusion that they did for the reasons stated in the original opinion.
It is true that there is evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs in error to the contrary of the conclusion reached by us and by the trial court, but it must be remembered that where there is competent evidence to the contrary and the jury accepts this evidence they are the ones to credit the testimony and are the final arbiters as to the credibility of these witnesses. The jury likewise may draw reasonable and natural inferences from proven facts and physical evidence, such as the speed of the car and the damage done to the car as a result of being struck. There was evidence of the speed of the car that these plaintiffs in error struck, and it was perfectly natural for the jury to reach the conclusion that the speed of the car of the plaintiffs in error was exceeding that of the car that was struck since they passed it and didn’t stop. After considering the matter further we are satisfied that what we have stated in the original opinion is the correct and logical conclusion to be drawn from the record.
Petitions to rehear are not filed for the purpose of rearguing the case on points already considered and determined unless there is some authority which has not been discovered, or which has been overlooked by the Court. The office of petition like that here is to bring to the attention of the Court matters overlooked not those things which counsel supposes were improperly decided. *517See City of Nashville v. State Board of Equalization, 210 Tenn. 587, 360 S.W.2d 458, and particularly at page 472, The petition to rehear must he denied.