Court Opinion

ID: 9834382
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:32:31.628686+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:14.381827
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
• Upon original consideration, through some inadvertence, appellant’s fourth assignment, complaining of the exclusion of his proffered testimony as to the distance within which the inbound car could have been stopped, was overlooked; as a consequence, it was stated in the opinion that no such complaint appeared, and disposition of the cause was made upon that assumption.
■On rehearing, however, that assignment duly presenting the matter has been called to our attention, and has been carefully considered.
[6] As the bill of exceptions on which it rested discloses, the appellant, although saying nothing about the speed of this car, except that it did not stop before the accident nor (so far as he could tell) slow up, offered to state that both street cars, at the speed they were then traveling, could have been stopped within a distance of 20 feet, and, if that had been done, a space of at least 100 feet would have been left between them before meeting.
The only objection made to this tendered testimony, and which the court sustained, was the witness had not qualified as an expert as to the distance within which the cars could hare been stopped, and was therefore not capable of giving that kind of evidence.
[7] We think the testimony was admissible over the particular objection urged, but are further of opinion that, had it been admitted, it would have become immaterial and been left without probative force, since it is evident the witness’ opinion was based upon and ha,d reference to the fate of speed alone, he not pretending to know anything whatever about the operation of a street car, nor anything as to the condition of the brakes or other appliances available upon the car in question, nor was there at any time during the trial an offer to make proof otherwise as to these matters.
In all other respects, too, the motion has had our careful consideration; but,.-Tinder the conclusion that no error was committed in the former decision it is overruled.
Overruled.