Court Opinion

ID: 9832510
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:58:14.053599+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:47.573141
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[5] Appellee, in his motion for a rehearing, has requested us to file additional findings of facts, and in compliance therewith we find that the bumper was 14 by 14 inches and the cylinder head was 18 by 18 inches; that had the bumper been as large as the cylinder head, pieces of the latter could not have been thrown behind the bumper when it was broken in coming in contact therewith, and persons standing behind the bumper would have thus been protected. But the evidence shows that plaintiff was not standing behind the bumper, but off to one side at right angles from it, and that a larger bumper would not have prevented pieces of the cylinder head when broken off from flying in the direction he was in, and therefore the defects in the bumper could not possibly have been the cause of his injury.