Kjellander v. Piedmont Baking Co.

Stacy, C. J. The learned counsel for appellant, Mr. Self, advances the following argument in favor of the special instruction proffered, by the defendant, but which the court declined to give: “It may be that the driver of defendant’s truck yielded for a few seconds to a demand for sleep; he may have allowed his mind to wander from the business in hand to contemplation of some real or fancied trouble; he may have fallen into a ‘brown study’ or a fit of absentmindedness. But whatever the reason for his lapse, it is highly probable that he would have ‘snapped out of it’ instantly if the plaintiff had sounded his horn, and there would have been no collision.” *208 The argument is ingenious, and worthy o£ preservation, but it would seem that the instruction was properly declined, as the defendant offered no evidence to support its contention. The cross-examination of plaintiff did not supply the defect in this respect. The court committed no error in refusing the instruction as requested. The case was fully covered in the charge. A careful perusal of the record discloses no reversible error committed on the trial, hence the verdict and judgment will be upheld. No error.