Title: Bockman v. Mitchell Bros. Truck Lines

State: oregon

Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court

Document:

Reversed and remanded January 8, 1958.
Petition for rehearing denied March 19, 1958.
*89 Howard K. Beebe, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Maguire, Shields, Morrison & Bailey, Portland.
Carlton Reiter, Portland, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Paul R. Harris, Stern, Reiter & Day, Portland.
Before PERRY, Chief Justice, and ROSSMAN, BRAND and McALLISTER, Justices.
REVERSED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
McALLISTER, J.
The plaintiff, Henry Bockman, brought this action against Mitchell Bros. Truck Lines, Inc., a corporation, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff when the boom of a crane operated by defendant struck an electric power line while the parties were engaged in loading metal pipe onto a truck. The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $9,350 and from the judgment based thereon, defendant appeals.
Defendant contends that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law and for that reason, the court erred in failing to grant defendant's motion for a nonsuit and for a directed verdict.
Plaintiff and his partners, Orval LaCross and William LaCross, who were scrap metal dealers, had purchased some used metal pipe which was lying along the Lusted road east of Gresham in Multnomah county. A large water main had been replaced and the old pipe was strung along the north side of the roadway for several miles. For about a week prior to May 5, *90 1953, plaintiff and his partners had been using a small crane to load the pipe onto trucks. The small crane proved unsatisfactory and plaintiff arranged with the defendant to furnish a larger crane and an operator to load the pipe and trucks and drivers to haul the pipe to Portland. Defendant was to receive an hourly rental for the use of the crane including the operator and a fixed amount per ton for the hauling.
Defendant's equipment was first used on May 5, 1953, and plaintiff was injured at about 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon of that day. When work started that morning an attempt was made to load some pipe which had been piled in a field but because both the crane and truck kept getting stuck, it was decided to move the equipment onto the road. During the remainder of the day pipe was loaded from along the road with both the crane and trucks standing on the road.
There was an electrical transmission line along the north side of the road with two crossarms on each pole. The upper crossarm was fastened near the top of the pole and carried near each end a bare electrical wire. The wire on the side toward the road carried a high voltage of electricity. The wire on the other end of the crossarm was a neutral wire. The lower crossarm carried on each side thereof a number of telephone wires. The telephone wires carried a low voltage of electricity and were harmless even upon direct contact. The distance between the two crossarms is not disclosed by the evidence.
The photographs in evidence indicate that the pipe was lying adjacent to the road approximately underneath the telephone and power lines. The crane was mounted on a truck chassis and when the accident occurred, was standing at the north edge of the improved *91 portion of the roadway. The truck then being loaded was also standing on the road immediately to the west of the crane. In picking up the pipe it was necessary to swing the boom of the crane to the north toward the wires. The evidence does not disclose the height of the wires above the ground nor the length of the boom. The photographs clearly show, however, that the boom was long enough to reach the charged electrical wire on the upper crossarm.
The cable with which the pipe was lifted was fitted with hooks to be attached to the pipe. The plaintiff was helping with the loading operations and occasionally hooked the cable to the pipe. When plaintiff was injured he was standing on the ground near a piece of pipe waiting as the crane operator swung the boom around and lowered the cable so that plaintiff could hook the cable to the pipe. As plaintiff was looking up and reaching for the hooks the boom struck the "hot" wire and plaintiff suffered a severe shock which rendered him unconscious and caused the injuries of which he complains.
In contending that plaintiff was negligent as a matter of law, defendant relies on the following rule stated in Carroll v. Grande Ronde Elec. Co., 47 Or 424, 443, 84 P 389:
Whether plaintiff was negligent as a matter of law must be decided primarily on the basis of plaintiff's *92 own testimony. We will therefore first summarize the testimony given by plaintiff before quoting some of the pertinent portions thereof from the record. Plaintiff testified in substance:
Before quoting from the testimony, we point out that plaintiff had testified at a prior trial of this case which resulted in a mistrial before the case was submitted to the jury. The references to plaintiff's testimony *93 in a deposition refer to his testimony at such prior trial. Concerning the number of times that the operator was warned, plaintiff testified in part as follows:
The testimony of plaintiff concerning his reason for warning the operator of the crane included the following:
Concerning his appreciation of the danger involved, plaintiff testified as follows:
Concerning the effect of the warnings on the conduct of the crane operator, plaintiff testified as follows:
The rule quoted from Carroll v. Grande Ronde Elec. Co., supra, is stated in 1 Prosser, Torts (2nd ed) 303, § 55, in the following language:
We think the conduct of a plaintiff who voluntarily assumes a position of known risk in a case such as this is properly called contributory negligence. We will not enlarge this opinion by considering whether it is technically precise to also describe it as assumption of risk. Some decisions and texts do so but the use of that term has not changed the standards by which the conduct is measured. We refer those interested in further pursuing the subject to Hunt v. Portland Baseball Club, 207 Or 337, 296 P2d 495, Prosser, Torts (2nd ed) 303, § 55 and 2 Restatement, Torts 1230, § 466.
Although the opinions contain no reference to the rule stated in the Carroll case, the principle embodied therein has been frequently applied by this court. See for example Young v. Prouty Lumber Co., 81 Or 318, 159 P 565; Borgert v. Spurling et al., 191 Or 344, 230 P2d 183; and Adair, Adm'x v. Valley Flying Service, 196 Or 479, 250 P2d 104. In the Young case the plaintiff was waiting for a plank to be thrown onto the platform on which he was standing and was injured by the plank. In the Borgert case the plaintiff assumed a position of danger on the highway at night when the highway was substantially blocked by his car and another car parked along side. In the Adair case, the plaintiff voluntarily accepted a ride in an airplane operated by an obviously intoxicated pilot. Although these cases presented entirely different factual situations, it was held in each that the plaintiff had been negligent, as a matter of law, in voluntarily assuming a position of danger with knowledge of the risk. See also Hunt v. Portland Baseball Club, supra, where a *96 companion rule based on the same principle was applied to a spectator at a baseball game.
We do not need to determine here whether the plaintiff must in every case have actual knowledge of the risk or whether under certain circumstances such knowledge may be implied. It is sufficient for this case to say that the rule of the Carroll case must be applied here if plaintiff (a) had knowledge of the risk, (b) understood and appreciated the hazard and (c) voluntarily assumed a position of danger. We think that all of these essential elements of contributory negligence were established beyond question by plaintiff's own testimony.
The plaintiff knew that in order to pick up the pipe it was necessary to swing the boom toward the wires. Plaintiff knew that in spite of repeated warnings, the crane operator had continued to swing the boom into the wires. Plaintiff's appreciation of the hazard involved is shown conclusively by his testimony that the warnings were given by him out of fear for his life and the lives of the other men. Plaintiff's understanding of the hazard is further proved by his testimony that he at times dropped the hooks and ran back when he saw the boom swing toward the wires. It was established by his own testimony that plaintiff, with knowledge and appreciation of the risk, voluntarily continued to engage in the loading operation, assumed a position along side the next piece of pipe to be lifted and reached up for the hooks while the boom was swinging toward the wires.
1. The question of whether defendant's motion for a directed verdict should have been granted must be considered in the light of the rule that contributory negligence becomes a question of law only when reasonable men can draw from the facts the sole inference *97 that the negligence of the plaintiff contributed to his injury. If reasonable men may draw different inferences from the facts, the question is for the jury. See Martin v. Harrison, 182 Or 121, 180 P2d 119, 186 P2d 534; Pritchard v. Terrill, 189 Or 662, 222 P2d 652, 25 ALR2d 358; and Borgert v. Spurling et al., supra.
2. In considering the testimony of the plaintiff in this case, we see no room for differences of opinion. How can there be differences of opinion about questions which have been answered completely and finally by plaintiff himself? Can we speculate about his knowledge of the risk when plaintiff has told us he warned the operator out of fear for his life? Can we differ about his appreciation of the risk when plaintiff has testified that earlier in the day he dropped the hooks and ran when he saw the boom swinging toward the wires? Plaintiff has eliminated all question as to the position of danger assumed by him when he was injured. Under these circumstances we are satisfied that plaintiff was negligent as a matter of law.
3, 4. We must next determine whether plaintiff is precluded from recovery by his own testimony or whether he is entitled to the benefit of other evidence in conflict therewith. It is a well established rule that plaintiff on a motion for directed verdict is entitled to the benefit not only of his own testimony but also of all evidence favorable to him, including that introduced by defendant, considered in the light most favorable to plaintiff. See Finn et al v. S.P. & S. Ry. Co., 194 Or 288, 241 P2d 876, and Doty v. Southern Pacific Co., 186 Or 308, 207 P2d 131. But for the reasons hereinafter set out, this rule does not aid the plaintiff in this case.
The question as to when the testimony of a party *98 is binding upon him as an informal judicial admission, is one upon which the courts have expressed divergent views. In the recent case of Morey, Administratrix v. Redifer et al., 204 Or 194, 264 P2d 418, 282 P2d 1062, this court applied the following rule:
This problem was the subject of an excellent opinion in Harlow v. Laclair, 82 NH 506, 136 A 128. In considering the rule that the plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of all of the testimony, Mr. Justice Branch precisely stated the problem as follows:
After referring to the decisions from other jurisdictions and a statement of the circumstances which should be considered in such a case, the opinion reaches the following conclusion:
Plaintiff recognizes the predicament in which he has placed himself by his own testimony but argues that he is entitled to the benefit of other evidence to rescue him from that position. He relies on the testimony of two truck drivers who swore that they heard no warnings given to the crane operator and on the testimony of the operator himself who denied receiving any warning about the wires except the following:
Plaintiff cites Cox v. Jones, 138 Or 327, 5 P2d 102 and there is dicta in the opinion which tends to support his position. The case involved a typical collision of motor vehicles at a street intersection. The plaintiff testified that she entered the intersection at a lawful rate of speed and saw defendant's truck approaching from her right but believed that she had ample time to cross in front of the truck and was nearly across the intersection when her car was struck. Other witnesses for the plaintiff estimated that plaintiff was traveling faster than her own testimony indicated. It was contended that a verdict should have been directed for the defendants because "plaintiff herself admitted that she saw the defendant's truck approaching, and observed the speed at which it approached and the proximity of defendant's truck to the intersection; and that the testimony in behalf of plaintiff discloses that plaintiff was operating her automobile at a speed in excess of 15 miles an hour." The court decided that the question of plaintiff's negligence was for the jury.
We think the decision was obviously proper and that the court in effect merely applied the rule that in considering a motion for a directed verdict, plaintiff is entitled to the benefit not only of his own testimony but also of all evidence favorable to him considered in the light most favorable to plaintiff. The opinion, however, quoted from Wiley v. Rutland R. Co., 86 *101 Vt. 504, 86 A 808, which held in effect that an admission made by a party as a witness on the trial is not "in the nature of a judicial admission having conclusive effect in law." We think this reference to Wiley v. Rutland was entirely unnecessary to the decision of the Cox case. We have read with care the testimony of the plaintiff quoted in the opinion and find nothing therein in the nature of an informal judicial admission. Although the plaintiff admitted that she saw the truck approaching from her right, she steadfastly insisted that she thought she had plenty of time to cross the intersection and did not realize how fast the truck was coming until it was upon her. In view of that testimony, a holding that the testimony of a party may not amount to a judicial admission was pure dicta. To the extent that Cox v. Jones can be construed as holding that the testimony of a party may not under any circumstances amount to an informal judicial admission, it is in conflict with our opinion in Morey, Administratrix v. Redifer et al., supra, and is overruled.
If plaintiff's testimony in this case was inconclusive or related to matters about which he might be mistaken, the effect of his testimony would be for the jury. But plaintiff was testifying as to matters within his special knowledge and in part to facts about which only plaintiff was fully informed. Plaintiff was in the best position to know whether he warned the crane operator out of fear for his own safety. Plaintiff did not equivocate in his testimony that he warned the operator both in the forenoon and in the afternoon and that the operator was also warned on a number of occasions by the LaCrosses and Ed Zeller.
5. In view of this testimony it seems apparent to us that the jury could find for the plaintiff only after *102 first finding that the testimony of the plaintiff was false. A jury should not be permitted to arrive at a verdict by that process. The court should have directed a verdict for the defendant.
Reversed with instructions to enter judgment for the defendant.