Court Opinion

ID: 9830441
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:13:09.451991+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:22.647127
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant in her motion for a rehearing criticizes our statement of the case and contends we should have included other testimony. We have no objection to doing this and here and now add such testimony.
In addition to the facts set forth in our original opinion the record further shows as follows:
The witness Tom Hardisty further testified that “after the car stopped, Beatty seemed to try — it looked like he was trying to choke the car or something; trying to start it, to do something with the dashboard.”
In our original opinion, in speaking of the witness W. J. Banker we state, “he could not see the train until it was almost opposite him, as his building obstructed his view.” This statement is inaccurate, what the witness did testify to was that from where he was standing he could not have seen the locomotive until it had reached at least the west side of the building, that from where he was standing he could see about 50 feet down the track to the west, about 50 feet from a point opposite him on the north. And, further, in answer to a question as to how far he could see down behind his building, behind his tanks, down the track from the intersection of the Old Depot Road and the Highway, he stated: “I believe about between 150 to 200 feet.” Banker further testified that the right of way was straight and unobstructed for at least one-half mile from the Old Depot Road crossing to the west, the direction from which the train was coming, and at *798the time of the collision there were no railroad cars or automobiles so parked as to obstruct the view along this right of way. Further, that when Banker heard the incessant whistling and finally looked to see what the trouble was, he believed the locomotive was between where he was standing and the Gulf warehouse down the track; “that would be somewhere around 100 to 150 feet beyond my vision to the west,” and that he would say that the locomotive was possibly between 250 and 300 feet from the crossing when the whistling finally caused him to look to see what was the matter.
We feel that these added and corrected findings in no way affect the decision in the case, and having carefully considered appellant’s motion for a rehearing we overrule the same.