Court Opinion

ID: 9830732
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:25:12.89013+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:43:03.038627
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In their motion for rehearing appellees vigorously attack some of the details of the statement of the case in the original opinion.
It is first insisted that we misstated the rate of speed at which the train was moving when struck by the Ford car. It was stated that that speed was probably 3 or 4 miles per hour. There was evidence, however, which perhaps would have warranted a finding of from 3 to 15 miles per hour. This variance is not material.
So was it stated in the original opinion that the truck driver passing immediately in front of appellant’s train testified that he met the Ford about 40 feet beyond the crossing. That statement was correct, although other witnesses for appellees gave various and conflicting estimates of that distance. That point is likewise immaterial to the decision.
It is contended that the statement in the original opinion, that the train brakemen carried lighted lanterns, was erroneous. Such was the uncontroverted testimony, as we view the record, but even that point is immaterial, as the brakemen were on the rear car, about 175 feet from the crossing, at the moment of the impact, and were still further away prior to that moment, and it is impossible that their acts or omissions could have influenced the occupants of the Ford.
Appellees complain that their case was unfairly stated in the original opinion, but a careful review of the facts do not support that complaint. That statement seems quite as favorable to appellees as the latter’s own statement in their brief, in which they summarize the salient facts of the case as follows:
“He (an expert witness for appellees) testified that the first place where a person approaching said crossing along said highway from the South would have an unobstructed view of the track East of the crossing would be about 75 or 100- feet from the track. That an automobile traveling 35 miles per hour would travel 51 feet per second. .(The eye *750witnesses estimated the speed of the car in which deceased was riding at 35 miles per hour.) * * ⅜
“That an automobile running at that rate would run from the first point on the highway where it would be possible to see a train to the crossing in one and two tenths seconds. That it would run from the first point where the view would be unobstructed to the crossing in about one and three fourths seconds. ⅜ * *
“S. I-I. Bruce, who arrived so soon after the collision that the auto was still a mass of flames, testified: It was foggy; it was foggy enough I had to run my wind shield wiper; you couldn’t see very far ahead, about fifty or sixty feet; I had good lights and could not see over that; * * ⅜
“Gregoria Rodriquez, an eye witness: It looked like there was clouds of smoke; foggy, coming like clouds, like smoke. Although the lights of the automobile were bright they could not,see the road very well due to atmospheric condition. After showing that his view of the locomotive headlight was unobstructed and about a block away when it crossed the highway he testified: As the train crossed I could not see the headlights very well; I could see it very dim. * * *
“It was uncontradicted that the locomotive had passed East of the highway and its lights were focussed Eastward away from the highway and was obscured from the view of the persons approaching the crossing along the highway from the South. * * ⅛ It was shown that at a point a short distance South of the crossing, estimated by the witnesses at from 30 feet less than a 'block or half a block, the auto in which deceased was riding, met a lighted truck. * * * That under those conditions the range of one’s vision is limited to the place where the lighted automobile in front of him is and after passing the lights one travels from 50 to 75 feet before they can see anything. * ⅜ * That the auto was in about 30 feet of the train before its lights reflected on the cars through the fog. ’* ⅜ ⅜ That the brakes of the auto were in good condition. * * * That fog made the road slicker than rain and diminished the braking power of an automobile on a hard surfaced road as was the highway in question and that under those conditions an auto operated at 35 miles per hour could not be stopped under 150 feet. * ⅜ *
“It was shown that the brakes on the automobile were applied at a distance from the crossing estimated by the witnesses at from 40 to 60 feet and the auto skidded into the train. * * * Defendant’s brakeman, N. L. Craig, testified: I first noticed the automobile a quarter of a mile away from the train. * * ⅜ It was headed directly toward the train and the train was directly in the path of the automobile. ⅜ * ⅜ I realized that unless something was done there would certainly be a collision. % * ⅜ At the rate of speed they were going, I figured they couid not hardly stop. When it slowed I realized that a collision was about to happen. ⅜ * No I did not make any effort to do anything. * ⅝ ⅜ ⅛ true (-jjjg wjtness also testified that there was nothing he couid do. W. G. Seamonds, another one of the Defendant’s brakemen in charge of the train testified: The automobile was 70 or 80 feet from the train when I first saw it; T didn’t do noth-in * » * i realized that there was nothing to be done to keep him from hitting it; I never tried to do anything because there was only a few seconds for anything that could have been done.’
“The automobile in which deceased was riding skidded, with the emergency brake pulled entirely back, into the sixth car from the engine, counting the water car.”
No case has come to this court which appeals more strongly than this to the human sympathies. The accident was a frightful one; the consequences deplorable in the extreme. But these considerations, however appealing, can be given no effect upon the question of liability.
Appellees’ motion for rehearing is overruled.